Trafikjournalen (Test: 1955 TORSHALLA POESY KOMBI)

[Knugcab]

REPRINT FROM #4 1985
REVIEW OF HESSENBURG 2000 RSi 16v

SPORTY COMPACT FOR ADULTS

Hessenburg calls the notchback 2000 a sporty coupé. 2 door sedan is more what we think of it, but the styling is clean, crisp and well proportioned in our opinion.

A paintjob as white as snow, some discrete alloy wheels, a small front spoiler and an equally small one in the rear. And of course, the RSi 16V badge in the grille. Here, you won’t find any neon colours, wild graphics, popup headlights, oversized TURBO badging (not that the RSi 16V even has a turbo, but you probably understand what we mean anyway), Hessenburg has an almost teutonic approach to building sporty compacts. “Good” says people that is still interested in performance without wanting a disco on wheels. “Boring” in the opinion of some other people. But the car in itself is far from boring, but can it offer anything more than fun?

DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
Sticky low profile rubber on light alloys will keep the car planted to the road. On the skidpad it manages 1.01 G which is a good value. As the front wheel drive car it is, it offers stable handling but also understeering, maybe more than we would like. The amount of wheelspin and torque steering is not alarming, even if it’s present. Brakes are excellent anyway. Standard ABS, vented discs up front and short stopping distances (35 metres from 100). Fading is almost non-existant.

City driving is a joy with the Hessenburg. Small dimensions and power steering of the variable ratio type means that parallell parking, as an example, is an easy job for its driver.

Hessenburg has not completely eliminated some of the drawbacks the front wheel drive layout has, but believe us, it is pretty close to a 5 star rating here.

VERDICT: ****

PERFORMANCE
The first generation RSi more or less redefined what “performance” meant in a small car overnight. The current generation is almost scary fast for such a compact car. 0-100 takes only 7.62 seconds, 80-120 5.04 seconds and the quartermile 15.66 seconds. It tops out at 215 km/h. Convincing enough?

VERDICT: *****

COMFORT
As the sporty car it is, the suspension is set up quite firm. The seats are nothing special, and lacks some side bolstering one would have liked. The contoured back seat improves seating comfort for rear seat passengers though.

The engine has some growl but not the amount that some so called “sporty” cars has. Sound insulation is average for its class and the engine is somewhat revvy at highway speeds.

VERDICT: **

ROOMINESS & PRACTICALITY
2 doors and 4 seats, the question is how you look at the car, normal for a sporty coupé, a bit less great for a family sedan. The luggage space is not really suited for a large family, but the interior space is decent. Notchback styling with a small lid means that loading is harder and flexibility compromised, compared to a hatchback. At least the load capacity is good for its class.

VERDICT: **

Stumpy rear end does not fit any huge amounts of luggage.

EQUIPMENT
Variable ratio steering, alloy wheels and ABS are positive surprises. Other than that the level of equipment is quite normal for its class. The interior has a tweed upholstery that has the word “regular” written all over it, and of course carpeting on the floor, other than that it is lots of black plastics, not fancy but functional. You got everything you need though, like a clock, interval wipers, remote mirrors and a rather average sound system with FM radio and tape player.

VERDICT: ****

ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
Some years ago, this engine would have been formula 1 technology. Double overhead camshafts, 4 valves per cylinder, fuel injection and separate runners. The 1798 cc inline four is made of cast iron, with an alloy head, and has a power output of 138 hp. Sure, at idle it is a bit rough but it doesn’t need that much of revving to run reasonably smooth. But it is obvious that it is meant for sporty driving rather than relaxed cruising.

It is mated to a slick 5 speed gearbox that is a joy to shift. Spacing is maybe a bit wide to get that “sporty” feeling but in reality it works well. A welcome addition in a light car with a relatively powerful engine is the limited slip differential.

VERDICT: *****

QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
Predicted reliability is relatively high. Earlier Hessenburgs have been good and there is no reason why this one should not be it too. It also appears to be decently well built. The protection against rust is among the best in its class too.

VERDICT: ****

ECONOMY
Small does not mean economical in this case. $24200 AMU for a car this size is not cheap. Even more worrying is the service costs at $1001.10 AMU. It also gulps quite an amount of fuel, 10.7 litres per 100 km. Positive, however, is that second hand values probably will be high.

VERDICT: **

SAFETY
Not every small car is a deathtrap. The Hessenburg has a well engineered bodyshell combined with the latest in equipment such as a drivers side airbag and pretensioning seatbelts. US government crash testing was recently passed with flying colours. In a crash against a larger car, however, size might handicap it a bit, but it is absolutely among the safest cars in its class.

VERDICT: ****

FINAL VERDICT: 32/45
It’s hard not to like the Hessenburg. The few drawbacks it has is hard to avoid when building a sporty compact car. But in every important area, it shines. It is aimed at people that actually wants a driver’s car, but that does not care for or even want war paint. Simply put, this is the sporty compact for grown ups. A “mature” car for its class.

But it comes at a cost, it’s not cheap to buy, to own or to drive, and that should probably be kept in mind before buying.

---

Thanks to @BannedByAndroid for the car!

---

[kalan]

A very voracious engine. 10.7 liters per hundred kilometers on the highway, as we know, this is not in any framework. Given the fact that the Euro - 6 standard has appeared, this engine, moreover, may not be cleanly for ecology. Ecological issues are now not far in the last place, these are not the times of the 1970s, when the Americans built musculcars, now the situation has become much worse, and according to recent reports, the ice in Greenland began to melt due to the first rains.

In addition, electric cars are becoming more numerous and more real in our world, so most likely, from internal combustion engines — steam locomotives on the road — will begin to be rejecting. According to my information, machines emit 75% of harmful heat, compared to factories, they account for the remaining 25%.

By itself, this car is good for reason of its powerful engine, but at the same time, as you say, it car is ideal for parallel parking, but I have my own opinion, according to which even in sports cars you can park carefully if you learn. And this despite the fact that this cars have a power unit capacity of 400 horsepower!

Nowadays, everyone is well acquainted with cars because of globalization and computer games, so for a person, a car has ceased to be reckoned something exotic. Accordingly, there are become much more drivers with a great driving skill, and parking itself don’t must be a problem.

My verdict of the car:

It consumes too much gasoline, up to 20 liters in the city, for this reason it is bad as a favorite car for taxi drivers.

As a family car, it is suitable only for parents whose family has just had children, and its coupe-shaped orientation makes it extremely unsuitable for adults. But it is definitely better than the Volkswagen Beetle, which was too small for its shock time.

Conclusion: The car is suitable for adults, as an intermediate car that will ever have to be sold to novice drivers, and this car definitely bad for taxi drivers.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that by nature this car is absolutely not suitable for the beautification of an apartment/own house, because the sedan body with such a small trunk will not allow to transport the basic necessary things for building, what means that the way to hardware shops is almost completely closed for this car.

[Knugcab]

Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a review from the 80s of a car from the same era. Nobody had heard about Euro 6 or self-parking cars in the 80s. Electric cars back then were glorified mobility scooters.

And I think that it is quite clear that the car is not suited as neither a taxi or for anyone that is needing it to transport things to restore his house or apartment. Myself, I drive a Nissan pickup, THAT is a suitable vehicle for transporting goods from the hardware store. But absolutely not a sporty compact car.

I think that this vehicle is supposed to be very much inspired by the Volkswagen Jetta coupé GTX. That was hardly the choice for taxi drivers in the 80s either, nor was it seen as the most suitable vehicle for transporting goods (one difference is that the Mk2 Jetta actually had huge trunk space for its size while this one does not). It was aimed as a completely different market.

[Knugcab]

Since the family situation has calmed down, I open this up again as long as it stays that way.

[Knugcab]

REPRINT FROM #2 2005
REVIEW OF HAYAKU SJ

WHEN FUNCTION DICTATES FORM

With a length of only 390 cm, the SJ is of course right at home in situations like this. But is it anything more than just a city runabout?

For many years, small cars were nothing but small. On the outside, but also on the inside. But in the late 90s something happened. A new generation small cars came out, where the manufacturers had raised the height to accomodate more space. Not a bad idea actually, the footprint might be a critical point in crowded areas while the sky does not limit the height of a car by very much. Of course, it can only be done to a limit, and a higher body might have worse coefficient of drag, and make for a more “tippy” handling. But how well have Hayaku succeeded with the compromise in their new SJ model?

DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
To start with, as a city runabout, it is of course perfect. A length of only 390 cm combined with small overhangs and power steering (albeit of the old school hydraulic non-variable type) makes it an incredible easy car to drive.

When pushed harder, it’s a positive surprise. Of course, as the remarkably un-sporty FWD car it is, understeering is present but not at an annoying amount. The skidpad rating is an acceptable 0.85G, and the wheelspin and torque steer is kept at a minimum. Traction control is standard, but not stability control.

The brakes will stop the car in 43.7 metres from 100 and that’s not too bad, and they can do it multiple times without getting tired at all. ABS is standard equipment.

VERDICT: ****

PERFORMANCE
103 hp is not impressive nowadays and for its size, the car is surprisingly heavy. The automatic transmission will eat some of the power too and 0-100 is done in 12.9 seconds, not impressive by standards of today. More worrying is that 80-120 is done in a sluggish 10.1 seconds, overtaking should be carefully planned. It does 18.67 second times on the quartermile and tops out at 185 km/h, not impressive but also less important.

VERDICT: **

COMFORT
Suspension setup is firm but not hard. Seating comfort is about what one could expect in this class, as well as the sound insulation. Tyre noise is kept at a low level but the growl from the engine is a bit loud, even if it runs decently smooth for a 4-banger.

VERDICT: **

ROOMINESS & PRACTICALITY
The Hayaku has a practical bodystyle, no question about it. Great flexibility with 4 doors and a large hatch. Well utilized space with its upright, boxy styling. The room for passengers beats many cars that are much larger, and at 616 litres, the luggage compartment is impressive for a car this size. This is where the Hayaku really shines.

VERDICT: *****

It looks like a chubby little smurf, but interior space rivals larger cars.

EQUIPMENT
The Hayaku indeed has some goodies, like traction control, ABS, CD and alloy wheels. Other than that it could be seen as a quite normal car for its class. The interior is not exclusive, but functional. Of course some hard plastics but they hold together. A simple AC system, electric mirrors, electric windows up front, central locking, heated front seats and other stuff that we are starting to take for granted is included.

VERDICT: ***

ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
For a 4-cylinder, the 1.6 litre unit runs smooth, but is a bit buzzy. 102 hp may be a bit thin nowadays but it has a quite wide and usable power band. It is a DOHC 4 valve unit with VVT, completely out of cast iron. Tech levels on par with what one could expect.

What’s ancient, though, is the 4 gear automatic that does not even feature a lockup. That feels like something that should have been left in the early 90s to be honest, and takes away much of the driving pleasure in this car. Spacing is extremely wide but at the same time it manages to work in this car. Gearing is done with comfort and economy in mind, not sportiness.

VERDICT: **

QUALITY AND RELIABILITY
The Hayaku is simple in its technology and should be reliable. It appears to be about as well built as the average car, neither less or more. Rust protection is good even if not excellent, the structure is galvanized and should be fine but watch out for surface rust on the body panels in some years.

VERDICT: ***

ECONOMY
$19300 AMU for a new car is not bloody and we predict a relatively good second hand value. There is always a market for a car like this. Not as good is the fuel economy, a car this size should do better than 8.2 litres per 100 km today, but probably the ancient transmission is to blame. At $732.60 AMU the service costs is not extremely low for the kind of car this is either.

VERDICT: ****

SAFETY
The car has a decent, but not excellent, safety package that includes for example dual front airbags, pretensioning setbelts, headrests on all places as well as 3-point belts, and reinforced doors. Some of the latest technology is lacking, like curtain airbags, that means that it will not be able to achieve more than 4 stars in Euro NCAP, and against a larger car the Hayaku will probably be at a disadvantage.

VERDICT: ***

FINAL VERDICT: 28/45
The Hayaku SJ is nothing that an automotive enthusiast will be excited over. But it is a very rational, practical and actually good small car. For basic transportation, maybe one of the better choices. And with the automatic transmission, it is as easy to drive as a bumper car in an amusement park. But we still suggest you to buy it with manual transmission, if you don’t really need or want an automatic. The auto is outdated and with a manual it is better in all kind of ways, except comfort and driveability.

---

Thanks to @Hilbert for the car!

---

[Knugcab]

REPRINT FROM NUMBER 26 1990
FIRST LOOK: HESSENBURG F-4

IS THE FUTURE ALREADY HERE?

There is 20 years separating the green car from the red one. A 1991 F-4 and a 1971 C200. One of them from when Hessenburg was stuck in the past. The other one from a company dictating what we should drive in the future.

Hessenburg. 20 years ago the company that recieved criticism for being stuck in the past with their RR platform. Now they release their futuristic F-4, and what is it really? Not a 2-door but not a real 4-door either. Not a family car, not a sports coupé, hardly a hot hatch. It’s really a new kind of car, with its small suicide doors in the rear, and sporty looks that aren’t purely for form.

Something that it is, though, is a competent performance car. Front wheel drive, but you hardly notice it, being more neutral than most RWD cars we have driven, and with amazing cornering grip. The small inline 4 may feel a bit “meh” to some customers, but how does 212 hp sound from 1.6 litres? Or 20 (!) valves? Do we even need to say that it features turbo and multi point electronic injection? It makes the car sprint to 100 in 5.6 seconds and max out at 250 km/h anyway. Much contributing to this is a large amount of aluminium, keeping the weight down to just under a tonne.

The F-4 is a techfest and eyecandy for the futurists. And at $31100 AMU it might fit in the budget for many of them too. There is of course nothing rational about a purchase, but it showcases what we are going to drive around in tomorrow, and is probably something of a test vehicle for technology we will se in more mainstream Hessenburg vehicles in the future.

---

Thanks to @BannedByAndroid for the car!

---

[DuceTheTruth100]

What country is Hessenburg from?

And the '78 red car looks pretty cool, would definitely like to drive!!

[Knugcab]

Germany, I think, right so @BannedByAndroid ?

[BannedByAndroid]

Yup.

[Knugcab]

REPRINT FROM #12 2020
TEST DRIVE: FWM ASPEN

IS THE ASPEN STILL WORTH BUYING?

The FWM Aspen has been around for some years now, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Eight years. Just a blink of an eye in the history of mankind, but when it comes to car model generations, eight years means that you are one of the seniors on the market. FWM Aspen is one of the seniors. Originally released in 2012, it has been around for a while, and since it was even a while ago when we last test drove one, we thought that it could be time for a check how well the car is holding its promises nowadays.

Design wise the FWM has some very personal style to it. “Stubby and chubby” as someone described it, well, it’s actually not even 4.4 metres long so there is some truth in that. But that does not mean that the FWM is unpleasant to the eyes, and styling does not feel terribly dated either.

For its compact size, the FWM is heavy, though. 1826 kilograms - where did all of them go? But FWM compensates with a 368 hp V8 - compensation enough if you ask us. 4.9 seconds to 100 and a 300 km/h top speed are stats that is talking for themselves.

Of course, handling is amazing, so are the brakes, the underpinnings are still sharp despite their age. The age also means that all bugs are sorted out by now so the FWM would be a quite reliable car. And updates with the latest safety technology means that it will pass all crash tests known to mankind with flying colours.

But drawbacks? You bet. It is not the roomiest family car, or the most practical, the most comfortable or the most economical to own. You simply won’t buy the Aspen for rational reasons (even if chances are that you’re trying to tell yourself that).

Still, it is a very good compromise between the need for some space and practicality, and the lust for speed. It fills an important role on the market, and is by no means outdated in 2020.

The price for respecting thy elders is $59500 AMU.

---

Thanks to @Vena.Sera423 for the car!

---

[Vena.Sera423]

Thanks for the review!
There is a reason why the FWM slogan is “For the Spirited Driver in All of Us.”

[interior]

Nice review, lots of effort into it and such. Not a demand but, I’ve been wondering if my latest entry I sent in PMs has been approved for use someday on the magazine someday.
(Newer car suffers from poor economy than its pre facelift version)

[Knugcab]

There is some cars waiting before yours still.

[interior]

Oh okay. Thanks

[Knugcab]

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!

---

[DuceTheTruth100]

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 !!

[Knugcab]

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.

[Knugcab]

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!

---

[Knugcab]

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.

[Knugcab]

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!

---