There is some cars waiting before yours still.
1 Like
Oh okay. Thanks
REPRINT FROM #10 1992
REVIEW OF WELLS APOLLO
American manufacturers have generally been conservative regarding styling and late on the aero bandwagon, but the Apollo is absolutely an exception.
A large V8 coupé when we are in the middle of a financial crisis, is that really a good idea? “Yes”, the Wells importer seems to think, and all of a sudden the slimmed new Apollo coupé has landed in Sweden. To not be a complete flop in times like these it better has to be good. Is it? Well, it takes a road test to find out so we guess that you already know where we are heading.
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
“American cars can’t corner”, you already know that. The Apollo is an exception from that. It has a quite advanced chassis with double wishbone suspension all around, and the results are as expected - good. 0.99 G on the skidpad to start with, and as all powerful rear wheel drive cars, it is a bit tail happy at low speeds, but when pushed hard it is fairly neutral and will not surprise its driver at any speed you will encounter on our roads at least.
There is some wheelspin, but since a limited slip differential and a traction control system is present, it will be kept under control.
Brakes are good with a 37.8 metre stopping distance from 100 and almost no fading until when the car is loaded to max. ABS and vented discs all around is standard equipment.
Power steering is a must have on a luxo barge like this, Wells have even equipped the car with the modern variable ratio type, increasing road feel while still keeping it easy to maneuvre when, for example, parking. But of course, in the city it is obvious that this is not some tiny little hatchback. The wide C-pillars create huge blind spots too.
VERDICT: ****
PERFORMANCE:
What surprises us is the (for its class) low top speed at 190 km/h. Sure, it is fast enough for speed limited american interstates, as well as is is on swedish roads. But in markets like Germany it will probably be a disadvantage when it comes to status.
Better then is the acceleration. 7.09 seconds to 100, 4.68 seconds 80-120 and 15.19 second quartermile times.
VERDICT: ****
COMFORT
The car is of course comfortable, even if that is a bit hampered by the “sporty” chassis setup. But seating comfort is heavenly and the car has very good sound insulation, you can barely hear the whispering V8, while tyre and wind noise is almost non-existant.
VERDICT: ****
ROOMINESS & PRACTICALITY
Hardly the reason why you buy a coupé. but the Apollo is not overly cramped and can fit 4 adults without too much of a struggle, and is officialy registered for 5. 383 litres of luggage space is hardly impressive, but the risk of overloading it should be small due to the impressive cargo capacity. Hardly a practical car, but actually more useful daily than many of its competitors.
VERDICT: **
The right car? Sometimes. At the wrong time? Maybe.
EQUIPMENT
If you mention it, the Apollo probably has it too. Leather steering wheel, gearknob and seats, climate control, cruise control, tripminder computer, ABS, traction control, electric windows and mirrors, keyless entry, CD player with 7 speakers and a sound that could wake up Tutankhamun, well, you name it. Don’t get surprised if you find new buttons every day the first three months of ownership or so.
VERDICT: *****
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
Wells have had some unorthodox engine layouts sometimes, and that could be said about the powerplant in the Apollo too. A 60 degree V8 and we kind of wonder why. It is not the most optimal layout but NVH levels are kept at a sane amount. It is kind of conservatively engineered with an old fashioned 2V direct acting OHC setup. That’s why we get a little bit confused by some choices, like the individual throttle bodies on something that puts out a conservative 251 hp from 4.9 litres. But sure, it gives a great throttle response. All in all an engine that does its job, but that’s far from impressive.
The 4 speed auto is the old fashioned type without computer control, seems to be sanely geared but the final drive is a bit questionable. It revs more than should be needed for a 4.9 litre V8.
You can hardly say that the Apollo drivetrain is bad, but competition in the class is razor sharp and Wells is falling behind.
VERDICT: **
QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
The car appears to be well built even for a luxury car. Everything feels solid, no squeaks or rattles were annoying us. Also, predicted reliability is not too bad considering the amounts of technology present in the car, and it is well protected against rust. Wells have built some sturdy cars throughout history and the Apollo seems to follow that tradition.
VERDICT: ****
ECONOMY
$44100 AMU is far from cheap even though there is some competitors that costs more. Fuel economy is a disaster at 16.4 litres per 100 km. Servicing is expensive at $1253.60 AMU. This is absolutely not a car that will spare your wallet, which might be what many people needs nowadays.
VERDICT: 0
SAFETY
The Apollo is probably an extremely safe car. It has all the latest equipment, like dual airbags, door beams, pretensioning seatbelts etc. - combined with a size and weight that will make it the “winner” against smaller cars. That also shows in US government crash testing where the Apollo is among the best scoring cars ever.
VERDICT: *****
FINAL VERDICT: 30/45
The market is not in the favour for a luxury car nowadays, and competition is tough. But the Apollo fills a niche in the market. Some people just wants a “nice” car that sets them apart from the crowd, that has lots of gizmos to play around with. And that’s where the Apollo comes in. If it’s not that important to brag about high technological drivetrain and blazing top speeds, the Apollo is not a bad choice.
The question is how many the importer will manage to sell, though. Tough competition and bad times are risking to make it a player in the margins.
Thanks to @DuceTheTruth100 for the car!
6 Likes
MUCH appreciated!!! I put a lot of effort into this one, this is something I wish I had in real life.
Everything seems on point minus the economy. Also, I still haven’t mastered the “service cost” element of this game…all I know is that big engines and not enough room in the engine bay result in higher service cost…
Wells is continually striving for improvement in every Sektor.
Thanks again @Knugcab !!
1 Like
On the other hand, economy is hardly a priority in this class. It’s just that in 92-94 Sweden was in a very deep financial crisis so any luxury car struggled at that time.
2 Likes
REPRINT FROM #24 1991
REVIEW OF SOVEREIGN OCELOT
YIN AND YANG
There is no doubt that it is a Sovereign Ocelot you are looking at, it doesn’t resemble anything else. But what does it have to offer other than looks?
“All cars today looks the same”. Yes, you have heard it before. And sometimes it is of course true. But on the other hand many cars were looking similar to each other in the 1940s too, and then there has always been cars standing out. Like the Sovereign Ocelot.
Love it or hate it, looks are only skin-deep. Is the Ocelot competitive in its class or is it pure form over function? That is what we are interested in finding out with this road test.
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
The car is surprising us with being very tail happy. At slow speeds it is wagging its tail like a happy german shepherd. The powerful engine, combined with a relatively light tail, no LSD and no traction control system is responsible for that. More worrying is that it tends to swing out its tail when pushed hard, too. It has a quite good skidpad rating at 1.01 G and sure it feels planted during everyday driving, but if you have to swerve quickly, things can get nasty.
Brakes are fair when it comes to stopping distances, at 40.9 metres from 100. But that is only once. When driven hard, the fading tendencies are terrible and even loading the car to max does affect the braking performance negatively. In a sporty sedan that’s not really acceptable if you ask us. But at least ABS is standard, which is a good thing.
It has power steering, though of the old school non-variable type. It works reasonably well though. But with relatively big outer dimensions this is far from a city car anyway.
Unfortunately, with the flaws that is present, we can only give it a disappointing rating here, even though it has some good sides that should not be forgotten.
VERDICT: *
PERFORMANCE
A 213 hp V8 means that the Ocelot is of course far from slow. 0-100 takes 7.51 seconds, 80-120 4.32 seconds and it does 15.55 seconds on the quartermile. Top speed is 258 km/h, dangerous for the drivers license and for that matter even other motorists, on our roads.
VERDICT: ****
COMFORT
Another area where the Ocelot shines. It is like flying on a cloud, because of the comfort oriented suspension. Of course, if it had more sane tyres than the insanely low 45 profiles on 18(!) inch rims it could have been even better. Seats and sound insulation are good, the engine is well muffled and it doesn’t rev annoyingly much at highway speeds.
VERDICT: *****
ROOMINESS & PRACTICALITY
The slippery shape is stealing some passenger space, and a 383 litre luggage compartment is hardly impressive. Despite its shape, it is not a liftback, meaning that you have to load everything through a rather small lid. At least this time it is form over function, even if we should not be too harsh on the Ocelot here. There is other cars that are worse.
VERDICT: ***
EQUIPMENT
The equipment on the Ocelot is a rather strange history. 18 inch magnesium wheels belong on race cars, and we think most customers would have ditched them for something more useful. Like a limited slip diff or a traction control system (much needed), or a sound system that doesn’t sound like 10 year old discount brand parts. Otherwise, it has a decent level of equipment. A nicely appointed leather/velour interior, air conditioning, electric mirrors and windows, central locking and other stuff we are getting used to in this class nowadays.
VERDICT: ***
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
The 4 litre V8 is a modern DOHC 4 valve unit, made entirely of aluminium. It has multi point fuel injection and variable valve timing. So it might be a surprise that it puts out a kind of conservative 213 hp, but it really has enough grunt. The engine is rather vibration free despite being a 60 degree V8. The powerband is pretty wide and it is well muffled.
Automatic transmission is standard, computer controlled and with lockup. It works well and gearing is sane.
VERDICT: ****
QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
Nothing indicates that the Sovereign Ocelot should be any better built or more reliable than the average car. Everything fits like it should, works like it should and nothing rattles like crazy, but nothing impressed us either. We don’t predict any future disasters, though, and the protection against rust is good.
VERDICT: ***
ECONOMY
For a large V8 car, $29500 is rather cheap. 11.1 litres per 100 km is hardly economy car figures, but maybe good enough for a car like this, and servicing are surprisingly cheap at $837.90 AMU. Even if a car in this class never gets economical, the Sovereign Ocelot is surprisingly good. Though we question the second hand value.
VERDICT: **
SAFETY
Should an accident happen, the large Ocelot has physics on its side. It also features a large amount of safety equipment like dual airbags (so an important reminder: no child seats up front), pretensioning seatbelts, steel beams in the doors, a fuel cutoff switch, 3 point belts and headrests on all places, etc.
We dare to say that not many cars today will exceed the amount of passive safety you get in the Sovereign Ocelot.
VERDICT: *****
Good on paper but not too convincing where it really counts.
FINAL VERDICT: 30/45
It might sound good on paper, but unfortunately we were not convinced by the Ocelot. High levels of passive safety but at the same time low levels of active safety. Cheap to purchase for what it is, but will you pay the price when you’re selling it instead? Nobody knows. Futuristic looks, that’s eating into passenger space. Flashy wheels, worthless sound system.
Yin and yang may also sound good in theory. Unfortunately, all the yang in this car can’t balance out the all too obvious yin, which is why this car didn’t become a favourite among our testers.
Thanks to @voiddoesnotknow for the car!
5 Likes
This will open again for submissions when I have switched over to the alpha version (in a not too distant future but I have to finish last scc round first). Until then, don’t send any cars, and I am sorry for the cars that never got a review and I hope you can have some mercy with that.
6 Likes
REPRINT FROM #6 1992
REVIEW OF ZERVE KAVEAT 1700i
THE CAR WITH NINE LIVES
The quirky styling remains a trademark for the Kaveat, as it has been for 30 years now.
Nah. It is not a joke. You can still buy a new Zerve Kaveat, 30 years after its introduction. The question now is only, does it remain competitive so many years later? We wanted to find out, and jumped straight into a 30 year old, but new, car, and tried to give it a honest verdict without prejudice. Keep reading and you will see what we found out about it.
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
Believe it or not, but this is an area where the Kaveat is not completely outdated. Refined all around double wishbone suspension and a reasonably good weight distribution despite the use of longitudinal front wheel drive is of course part of this success. At slower speeds the vehicle feels agile and nippy, easy to drive. It has power steering which does help with tricky maneuvering, and the upright and boxy body with relatively large glass areas, as was the norm in the 60s, gives great all round vision, which is another contribution to why this tiny car is like tailored for city driving.
At higher speeds, it feels a bit more unpredictable and lacks some stability, though. Cornering abilities are mediocre, but adequate. When pressed hard, however, it has a tendency to swing out its tail, which is maybe not expected for a FWD vehicle like this. It is not scary or dangerous, though, and it has to be pushed beyond its limits for this behaviour, but still, it is worth keeping in mind and maybe a sign that the design is showing its age now. It should be noted that high roll angles means that it feels like driving on stilts sometimes, too.
Brakes are a weird setup with 4 wheel drums (!) and ABS. Stone-age meets space-age, so to speak. But they work well, gives short stopping distances and does not show any excessive fade (for being drums at least). Still, it feels weird when a manufacturer has not switched over to at least front disc brakes in 1992.
Not only ABS is standard, but also a traction control system. Kind of a surprise, but might come in handy during slippery conditions.
VERDICT: ***
PERFORMANCE
84 hp in a car this tiny feels like a healthy figure, but fact is that for its size, the vehicle is a bit on the heavy side at almost 1.1 tonnes. Still, a 188 km/h top speed and 13.4 second times to 100 means that the car is far from a bad joke at least. Quartermile is done in 19.5 seconds, and going from 80 to 120 takes 9.6 seconds.
VERDICT: **
COMFORT
4 wheel independent suspension and a relatively soft suspension setting means that it swallows potholes as good as, if not better than, more modern competitors. Seating comfort is about average for its class, as well as sound insulation. Engine is not overly loud and does not sound too hard pressed at highway speeds due to the 5th gear being an overdrive.
VERDICT: ***
ROOMINESS & PRACTICALITY
It is a small car, meaning that it is small on space too. The passenger compartment aren’t too cramped for this type of car, and it legally seats five. Maximum payload is adequate for the class, but the luggage space is very small, and being a sedan (which was the norm at the time) it loses some flexibility over competitors with hatchback bodies. Four doors are of course a good thing, though.
VERDICT: **
EQUIPMENT
There is hard to complain about things lacking in this department. We have already mentioned ABS, power steering and traction control, we can also add glass sunroof, alloy wheels, tape player and central locking to the list. The interior is a strange mix between old and new, but it has a both practical and comfortable cloth upholstery and the floor has carpeting. So, if you expected this to be a penalty box, prepare to get a positive surprise.
VERDICT: ****
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
The flat 4 has its roots in the early post war era and the design is showing its age now. At least MPI and other recent updates have kept it competitive, and while 84 hp from an 1.7 litre engine is not impressive, it is not terribly bad either. Like most boxer engines, it is well balanced and smooth, and overall it is not a bad engine, but modern competitors are better at almost anything.
Transmission nowadays is a 5 speed manual with sane gearing that works well. Like the engine, hardly a miracle, though.
VERDICT: **
QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
Should be good from what we can see anyway. Technology is tried and true by now, and quite simple. Major mechanical faults are rare by now, and it appears to be decently well built. Rust protection has proven to be good.
VERDICT: ***
ECONOMY
Sort of a disappointing side. The engine is thirstier than we would have liked. In that case, it does not help that it can run on very low grade fuel - where are you supposed to find it in our country anyway? Purchase price is low at $18400 - but that still places it too high to be a competitor to the real budget cars. At least servicing is cheap at $577.7 AMU.
VERDICT: ***
SAFETY
It is heavier than most small cars, which in itself is a good thing, but truth is that much of the weight comes from the ancient BOF construction that was dated already in 1962, and that does not really allow for the crumple zones and reinforced passenger cells that the cars of today have. Then, things like the rear hinged doors are questionable - our tip is to not drive away with kids in the back seat without checking twice that they are actually closed. But there is some good things too, it actually has a drivers side airbag, maybe to fulfill the “passive restraint” regulations in some markets, but a welcome addition nonetheless. But still, it should be kept in mind that the car was designed in an era where most people did not care about safety.
VERDICT: **
Most of us have seen this view by now, but more often when passing than after being passed.
FINAL VERDICT: 24/45
The Kaveat is a prime example of the fact that a good design 30 years ago is still a good design - but that competitiors have learned to make even better cars that leaves it behind. It is still competitive, but there is lots of competition in this class and finding sharper participants than the Kaveat is not very challenging.
Still, it you feel that you for some reason really want a Kaveat, keep in mind that it could as well be a good buy and that there is no reasons to fear it (more than any other car that has its flaws like everyone else). But also that it is not really best at anything.
Thanks to @Restomod for the car!
7 Likes
REPRINT FROM #22 1979
REVIEW OF VERDANA VENTURE OHV4
TRACTOR DE LUXE
The OHV4 looks a bit dated, and unfortunately, it is more than just skin deep.
A brand new car, relatively well equipped, with a 3.2 litre engine, for $14800? That must be to good to be true, right? Well, technically it is not. That’s exactly what the Verdana Venture OHV4 is - but are corners being cut somewhere, is the question? A first look at it reveals that it looks dated already as new. If it looks good or not is up to you to decide, but it feels like VV is entering the 80s with a car that looks like it is from the 60s. But is that only cosmetics, or is it old fashioned also under the skin?
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
The rear wheel drive OHV4 is a tail happy car already at low speeds, and you better watch where you have it. Raise the speed, do an emergency maneuvre and - you will notice that it is a bad idea. The tail will break loose too easily.
Despite the high level of comfort equipment, VV decided to not equip the OHV4 with power steering, meaning that despite the compact dimensions, there can be some struggle with city driving. Of course, it is not that bad in such a light car, but still noticeable.
Brake balance is a bit too rear biased, meaning that the rear brakes risks premature lockup, which during extreme conditions might cause the car to spin around. But they are not too sensitive for fading, except when fully loaded, and they stop in a reasonable 44.3 metre distance.
The OHV4 is hardly a driving machine and has some less than desirable flaws, but during normal conditions, it performs adequate.
VERDICT: **
PERFORMANCE
Despite the agricultural characteristics of the engine, the OHV4 is reasonably frisky. Fact is that 0-100 is done in a more than adequate 11.1 seconds, the quartermile in 17.94 seconds and 80-120 takes a reasonably short 8.52 seconds. Top speed is 158 km/h, hardly an impressive figure anymore, but still adequate.
VERDICT: ***
COMFORT
Double wishbone suspension all around sounds promising, but unfortunately, VV did not choose spring and damper rates very wisely for this car. Suspension is stiff and harsh. The fact that the engine is quiet and that the sound insulation is good is hardly anything to brag about when you feel the vibrations from the engine in the whole car. Not even a decent seating comfort is any help in this case. The OHV4 simply is a very uncomfortable car to drive.
VERDICT: 0
Hardly the most comfortable place to spend your time. Also, inside feels as dated as the outside.
ROOMINESS & PRACTICALITY
The car seats five and has a decent room for passengers. Unfortunately, the trunk space is very small, and being a sedan with a fixed rear seat, there is not much flexibility either. Payload is high at 820 kg but we can question what the meaning behind that really is? It is more or less unusable and we would have preferred a more comfortable ride instead.
VERDICT: **
EQUIPMENT AND INTERIOR
The dashboard looks a bit dated already as new and some of the ergonomics could be questioned, like the placement of some of the switches, or the glare from the old school horn ring. However, it is easy to find a good driving position. It is well appointed with modern, molded door panels, velour/leatherette upholstery and comfortable contoured seats, but the carpet looks a bit messy. Better then is the equipment. It features stuff like a digital clock, tachometer, a well sounding radio (but without any tape deck), remote mirrors, central locking and lots of storage compartments with for example dual gloveboxes. Not too bad!
VERDICT: ***
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
A slightly undersquare 3.2 litre inline 4. Sounds agricultural? Is agricultural. The harshness and vibrations are totally out of this world. It redlines at 4800 RPM where it also has its power peak - 115 hp, which is kind of silly considering that it is a modern OHC unit. It feels even more tired thanks to a sluggish throttle response. At least it has a relatively quiet exhaust note and has a quite flat and nice torque curve, if one should say something nice. It is mated to a 4 speed manual that maybe is a bit short in the gearing - but it works.
Though, the disharmonical driveline is the really weak spot of the VV.
VERDICT: *
QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
It feels reasonably well put together, there is no major weak spots in its engineering, and probably the VV will work well for years to come. Very much worrying, though, is the complete lack of rust protection. If you buy one, get an undercoating done - quickly!
VERDICT: **
ECONOMY
We have already told you about the low price, and also service costs are at a sane $662.6 AMU. A questionable second hand value is less of a worry in a cheap car. But what’s not so great is the fuel economy. We averaged 15.9 litres per 100 km, which we feel is too much in a compact car like this.
VERDICT: ***
SAFETY
Another area where the VV feels outdated. Ancient BOF construction means that there is not much of modern crumple zones engineered into it. Interior does not offer much when it comes to padding and the dashboard has some sharp edges and protruding switches. Fuel tank is behind the rear axle in a somewhat vulnerable position, and also, being a light and relatively compact car, it has a disadvantage against something heavier. At least it has good headrests.
VERDICT: *
FINAL VERDICT: 17/45
The OHV4 will have a tough match in todays car market. It may be cheap, yes. But it also feels like a 15 year old car that was mediocre already as new. Mediocre then is absolutely substandard today. It has two major selling points - it is well equipped and it is cheap. But if you don’t feel that you necessarily NEED a brand new car, the use car market has much better values to offer.
After all, there are no free lunches in this world.
Thanks to @kalan for the car!
6 Likes
A very objective review! I was pleased and amazed.
3 Likes
REPRINT FROM #16 1994
REVIEW OF ARLINGTON FOXHOUND 4.3 GS
NOT GROUNDBREAKING, BUT COMPETENT!
Most people would agree that the Arlington Foxhound is stylish. The question is if the styling will appear to US car enthusiasts though. This could as well be japanese or german.
We look at our new test car and the front end reminds me of some japanese sports cars, while everything from the firewall and back could be a german luxury coupé. But what we are looking at is the modern interpretation of the classic american pony car. Gone are the days where you could see which country a vehicle was coming from just by the pure looks of it, maybe not so strange, today the wind tunnel is what dictates the shape. That’s probably something we will have to get used to, but the question is - how is the Arlington Foxhound to live with?
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
This is nothing like the muscle cars of the past. Sophisticated suspension systems both front and rear means that the car handles well. On the skidpad we managed to get 0.99 Gs - clearly a more than acceptable value. Of course it is rear wheel drive - that is an important part of the soul when it comes to cars like this. It is a bit tail happy at low speeds - just like it should be if you ask an enthusiast, but thanks to a limited slip differential, the meaty 225 rubber won’t go up in smoke immediately at least. But it feels very secure when it comes to high speed cornering, and it probably won’t surprise you in an emergency maneuvre.
About the brakes, one word. Excellent! Panic stops shows no fade and a 35.1 metre stopping distance from 100 means that you will almost be nailed to the windshield if you stomp on the pedal. And even a muscle car has anti lock brakes nowadays so you can trust them even if the weather conditions are harsh. Gone are the days of fading drum brakes, thank god.
Power steering (variable ratio) is standard, paired with relatively compact dimensions means that city driving won’t be a total struggle. The wedge shape might take away some visibility when it comes to parallell parking though - but that’s something we likely will have to live with in the future. Again, the wind tunnel is what shapes the cars of today.
VERDICT: ****
PERFORMANCE
Some people still says that the muscle era ended with the oil crisis and emissions regulations in the 70s. Obviously, they have never driven the 4.3 GS. 5.9 seconds from standing still to 100, a whooping 3.94 seconds from 80 to 120, 14.35 second times on the quarter mile. Top speed is electronically limited to 249 km/h - frankly, with a 110 km/h speed limit on the highways that is less of a worry.
VERDICT: *****
The side most people will see of the powerful Foxhound, is our guess.
COMFORT
Riding in a Foxhound is not exactly like riding on a cloud. Suspension is firm (not rock hard, just a bit “sporty” in its setup), seating comfort is horrible in the back but at least quite good up front. On the other hand, good sound insulation and a well muffled engine means that the ride is surprisingly quiet - now we don’t know if it will please the potential buyers or not, expect loud aftermarket exhaust to be a huge seller. Stiff clutch and gearbox is something that most often comes with a powerful manual transmission car - so also in this case. Don’t be scared away, though, the Foxhound is far from a penalty chamber - it is just not in the higher end of the market.
VERDICT: ***
ROOMINESS AND PRACTICALITY
Hardly the reason to buy a car like this, huh? The luggage compartment is minimal and the passenger space not much better. It is hard to find a less practical shape than a 2 door coupé - should be a convertible maybe. At least there is a back seat even if it’s hardly suitable for adults. Nah, from this point of view the Foxhound is hardly a rational purchase, but then again, that is also true for all of the competition.
VERDICT: *
EQUIPMENT AND INTERIOR
We have already mentioned limited slip and ABS. It also comes with variable ratio power steering, and of course what’s considered more or less “standard” today like power door locks. Our test car also came with an optional package including for example 16 inch alloy wheels wrapped in sticky rubber, leather upholstery and a grippy leather wrapped steering wheel, a tape deck with crystal clear sound, electric windows, air conditioning, dual cup holders etc. - something we consider worth picking when you do your purchase.
As for the interior, well… It feels a bit like nice seats and steering wheel in an otherwise a bit dated and “plastic” interior. But it is well laid out and has acceptable ergonomics, which is the important part. Some people might complain that it looks a bit “cheap” and old fashioned, though. It’s up to you to decide if you like it, and we aren’t going to beat on the car for this.
VERDICT: ****
Hardly exciting - but functional and competent.
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
The 4.3 litre V8 has a relatively conservative power output of 234 hp - but it is more than enough. It runs quiet and smooth, as well as efficient and clean for what it is. It has a SOHC valvetrain layout, cast iron block and alloy heads - a bit more up to date than the yankee cars of the past.
Gearbox and clutch are a bit more tractor like, a bit stiff which is the cost you have to pay when mated to a torquey V8, be a bit careful on it or you will fry either clutch or tyres, none of them exactly cheap. There is relatively wide spacing in the 5 speed manual, but gearing is relaxed for highway speed driving.
Hardly groundbreaking stuff but it does its job in a car like this.
VERDICT: ***
QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
The impression of build quality is fair but that’s it, don’t expect anything above average, but we would not call it a disappointment and it was free from rattles and squeaks. Also, panel gaps looks even and the metallic black on our test car was smoothly laid out with a nice sparkle. Lots of aluminium and corrosion resistant steel in the panels and structure means that it will probably stay like that instead of turning into a leopard too. Also, tried and true technology means that ownership will be relatively trouble free, we predict the reliability to be slightly above average.
VERDICT: ***
ECONOMY
$30200 AMU is not at the bottom end on the market, but we think that you get a lot of car for that money. 12.1 litres per 100 km is far from economical in itself - but on the other hand, we don’t expect better in this class. Service costs, once again above average at £1029.7 AMU - but this is no 3 cylinder compact car on narrow bakelite tyres. We also predict second hand value to be good. So, this is far from an economy car - but absolutely not a disaster for your wallet. Actually, good for its class, we would say.
VERDICT: **
SAFETY
It offers nothing extra when it comes to safety, but of course it fulfills all the regulations, comes with stuff like door beams, pretensioning seatbelts, and (only) a drivers side airbag. The cramped cabin might be a concern but on the other hand, with the long front crumple zone you will sit far from the things you might (god forbid) manage to hit, and 1409 kg of weight is enough to be an advantage over a smaller car. NHTSA testing have given it a 3 star verdict - and so do we.
VERDICT: ***
FINAL VERDICT: 28/45
The Foxhound is by no means amazing, groundbreaking, but excuse our french - damn good. It gives you lots of value for your money and is competent overall - especially when it comes to performance.
A car like this has drawbacks from a rational standpoint, but then again, nobody buys a car like this for rational reasons, which have to be weighed in. It excels in all areas a modern muscle car should do it - and that’s the right priority. We doubt that many buyers would be willing to pay extra for stuff that is not necessary in such a car.
Probably that’s the key to success in this class.
Thanks to @Texaslav for the car!
7 Likes
Good reading, quality review as usual - and actually, a quite nice car - though I have to complain about one thing - the interior shot is too dark! Can’t see a thing there.
Yes, I know, didn’t have time to take a new one unfortunately.
Thanks for the review! It seems pretty spot on, and I do like that very Swedish touch of “…But we aren’t allowed to do 249!”
1 Like
REPRINT FROM #5 2012
FIRST LOOK: ALLURE G7
ODDBALL WITH LIMITATIONS
Say what you want, but the G7 won’t disappear in the crowd. If it looks good or not is up to you to decide.
In a world of cars being more and more similar, the Allure G7 at least gives us a whiff of fresh air. The styling stands out from the crowd, no question about it, and the rest of the concept is also interesting in some ways. With its aluminium body and almost sports car inspired 4 seater interior, it promises much, as well as rolling on 22 inch magnesium wheels suggests that this should be something over the top.
Unfortunately, it is not. The 223 hp from its 3 litre inline six sounds more like mid 90s sporty family sedan power figures, than something that would be competitive in this class today. Performance wise the competitors will blow the doors off the Allure G7.
Some engineering is also questionable, like having very small ceramic brake discs in the rear. Seems like unnecessary costs when it is time for replacement that could as well have been solved with regular iron discs. But there is no complaints about the braking performance, and even otherwise, the Allure G7 is a relatively pleasant car to drive.
Though we are questioning if this means that people are willing to pay 61300 AMU for a car that will have its doors blown off by some 90s turbo car tuned by a kid in a cowbarn. Unfortunately, we doubt that it is enough.
Thanks to @DuceTheTruth100 for the car!
4 Likes
Ayyeeee!!! This was a pleasant suprise lol. Thanks for the review my brotha!!
Im gonna take what you and Vero said make some adjustments engineering wise. After i sent you the 2nd file i ended up putting a turbo on that same engine and that brought power up to 334hp I believe. That will probably serve as the “base” engine im thinking 
. So for lore/game purposes ill have to think of a name for it, adjust some settings and whatnot and go from there.
Kinda like how Cadillac scrapped the 4cyl base engine in the ATS…we over at Allure will take the same approach.
Allure G7 3.0t anyone?
Once again thanks for the review!!
See, these reviews make way more sense. Harsh but constructive, like any good teacher or observer with experience. Awesome.
REPRINT FROM #21 2020
TEST DRIVE: SENZOU ZEUS 5.2 V10 GT
The Zeus GT is sliding out of the corner almost like a relic with its V10 engine. Environmentalists might hang their heads, but petrolheads probably find it refreshing that such a thing still can exist.
It should be said, with the EV revolution going on, it really does not feel politically correct to step inside something like the V10 powered Zeus anymore. Of course, we are all gearheads and deep inside we still love it. Yet, we know that nowadays very few petrol cars stand a chance even performance wise to the most powerful EVs, and while it might be understandable to still stick to the ICE in the lower end of the spectrum where the only goal is to build a cheap car for the masses, at $88300 AMU things are really different. Buying a car like the Zeus is like a statement that “I don’t give a crap, and I can afford to show it, too!”.
But then, there is something that appeals to our instincts that the EV never can replace. The roar from the turbocharged 688 hp V10. Burbling like a truck at low speeds, screaming insanely higher up in the rev range. In fact, a little bit too insanely on the early examples. After a few complaints, Zeus made the exhaust note a bit muffled. So, now we bet the market for aftermarket, louder exhaust might be blooming. As you already know, people will never get satisfied. Speaking of trucks, how about 814 Nm, by the way? Yeah, words are unnecessary.
The huge boat is electronically limited to 300 km/h - we have heard that speeds over 350 is theoretically possible with the limiter removed. Ouch. 4.6 seconds to 100 is maybe not amazing anymore but can hardly be called slow - the power to the chunky 275/35R22 rear wheels are transmitted through a 9 speed auto to an electric LSD that is doing its best to prevent them from going up in smoke.
The handling is great and what strikes us is that it is so easy to drive. Sure, it is no city hatchback at slow speeds, but it seems to be more comfortable with its occupation the faster you go. A totally mental car, and you have to drive in such a mental way to encounter dangerous situations. Should the worst happen, you’re sitting in a 2.2 tonne tank, having one of the best Euro-NCAP results in history.
Less impressive, though, is the brakes. They lack bite for being a performance car, and is actually a slight disappointment. Though it should be said that they can take lots of abuse before showing even the slightest of fade.
Does it come at a cost? Oh, you bet. The current gas guzzler tax will put a heavy penalty on it even if 11 litres per 100 km is an acceptable figure for what you get. We have also mentioned the high base price, and servicing is at $1868.6 AMU, once again, for the type of car an acceptable figure, but cars like this are always a disaster to own. And yeah, it requires 98 octane fuel, which is getting more and more rare at the tap, and comes at a price premium too.
An insane car for a few. A very few in fact. Since Senzou is not without competition, it will be a tough nut to crack in the small Swedish market.
If you still feel like you’re a potential buyer, hurry up. Who knows for how long we will even be allowed to buy stuff like this?
Thanks to @BannedByAndroid for the car!
7 Likes
IMPORTANT MESSAGE!
First, this thread has grown larger than I maybe thought that it would ever do back in 2018. This is of course fun, but it also means that it is (maybe) kind of hard to read and get an overview of at the moment. So, my plans are maybe to restructure the first page a bit, maybe freshen up the layout a little, so it might look a bit strange every now and then until I have sorted things out. Also, my queue for reviews only has one car at the moment, and I would prefer to keep it that way until I have sorted things out, so if you can put the cars on hold for a while, then I will open for submissions with less restrictions than it has been for the last months or so. I want to do this before it becomes a too hard work to handle.
Second of all, I want to give you some tips and an explanation of how this works.
As you might have seen, there is three types of new car reviews, “First look”, “Test drive” and full on “reviews” with the star rating. This is an intended thing and some people may see it as unfair that not every car will get a full on review. Truth is, this is supposed to mirror reality a bit.
This is mainly a “consumer oriented” magazine, that writes mainly about the cars Mr Average is interested in buying. Still, not a boring one so it has articles about everything automobile related, even hypercars, classics, customized cars to an extent. But, such magazines do exist IRL too, and if you look at them, you rarely will see a Ferrari get a review in the same fashion that for example a Toyota Camry will have.
So, if you want a full on review, the thing to do is to send in the most grey and boring econobox you can, huh? Not quite that easy. Even sporty, luxurious, upmarket cars gets full reviews every now and then, but it depends a bit on how interesting it might be for the general consumer, and in the end I am the one that makes the decision, there is no general answer.
What I know is that I get a lot of high end sports sedans, hot hatches in the upper end of the segment, supercars etc. - and sure, there is nothing wrong with that (except that it is getting a bit repetitive to only get cars from a few market segments). But that also means that there is a greater chance to only get one of the shorter writeups. If we once again look at reality, in a magazine like this, if a new model Audi A6 comes out, it will more or less be guaranteed a review, that despite the A6 being very much of an upmarket car. On the other hand, they would definitively do a writeup about the RS6 too, because that’s absolutely a car people wants to read about. But it will not get a separate, full on review. To the general public, it is much more interesting to know how well a bread- and butter model performs on the road, it might be quite disappointing if the top of the line model gets a good grade while they failed to mention that the version that most people will buy tips over in the corners and are slow like a golf cart.
Then, the next thing: Realism. An unrealistic car will have a hard time getting an in depth review. I don’t like to bin cars, but well. Let’s say you have built a small 2020 pickup truck, using a 50s body, glued aluminium chassis, carbon fiber panels, sports interior, longitudinal front wheel drive and a 700 cc 3-cylinder with carbs and a turbo. It also has a crane on the bed, a tap on the dashboard where you can choose between Dr Pepper and Coca Cola, and best of all, a hood ornament that looks exactly like Cheems. You’re so proud of it and you think that it is the coolest thing on earth…
You know what? Keep being proud, you probably had fun when you made it and it may be lots of hours put into it, may be the hardest work you have ever done in Automation.
BUT… The thing is, you should not be disappointed by such a car getting only a short writeup, and probably a very sour one too. It is nothing personal about it, nor do I necessarily say that I hate your car. But among cars that are supposed to be a serious alternative in the Automationverse, such ones simply does not cut it. With that said, I only remember that I have binned two cars, both were from the same creator and I simply could not give a fair review since he had put +15 quality on EVERYTHING. So I am quite relaxed when it comes to bins (some other cars never got a review because of personal reasons combined with the switch to 4.2 but that’s another story).
Also, I have decided that from now on, for a full on review a full interior is also required. It simply feels much easier to do realistic, interesting writeups if I can SEE what the interior looks like. And, it will also be part of the review. Now, don’t sweat it, I won’t judge things being some millimeters off or the interior not looking perfect. It’s more that I will look like things, if it looks up to date, put the dummy in there to see if the ergonomics seems to work (now, I will resize the dummy to 0.9 because most car bodies are simply too small to have a good fit for a full sized dummy), look if switches etc. seems to be placed in an intelligent and ergonomical manner, or scattered everywhere, etc.
Which interior you put into the car in automation will of course still matter. Putting basic interior in but building something from a Bentley out of the fixtures? Yeah, you bet that I will complain about leather imitation that actually is made from low quality PVC and woodgrain tape coming loose just by looking at it then!
Another thing - of course, the more lore and info you give me about the car, the easier for me to do the writeup. Once again, you can’t get a nicer review of a shitbox by telling me how good it is, but at least some info about the car maker and the actual model makes my life much easier, maybe also its position on the market, its history, if it’s a low- or high grade equipment level etc.
Questions? Just ask me. And I hope that I was more helpful than salty here, because that was my intention. I just like to exaggerate things sometimes to prove a point, and I hope that nobody takes it personally.
13 Likes
I’m pretty sure I know who’s that 
Interesting news, I like the in-depth view.
1 Like