Car Reviewing

[USDMFTW]

probably another week.

Looking forward to see if my car is junk or good.

[TheTom]

Time for another review! Allow me to introduce the

Forged Automotive Claymore REBIRTH







It was hard for me to find real world rivals to this car, as it is a very small but luxurious RWD V8 coupe. The cars I used as benchmarks were the Aston Martin V8 Vantage and the Jaguar F-Type V6 S. Worth noticing is that the Claymore is significantly lighter than both of those cars, despite making comparable performance figures. So, how does it stack up?

Performance (4 stars)

The acceleration (5.0s from 0-100km/h) and top speed (294km/h) are definitely adequate, but not extraordinary. Power comes from a 5.9L naturally aspirated V8 with Multipoint injection. It makes decent mid-range torque and a nice power plateau at the end of the rev range. The suspension has a mind of its own, though. The ride height is even higher than on the Offroad preset, and yet the roll angle is less than 5°. It is decently tame and very sporty for a luxury coupe. The 255mm rear tires are struggling to put down the 5.9L’s torque, though. Also, the lower gears are too short, with second gear topping out at about 90km/h, and the fact that you have to shift again to reach 100km/h makes the 0-100km/h time unnecessarily slower. In fifth and especially sixth gear you don’t get very much acceleration any more.


Ride Comfort (3 stars)

One would expect a luxury coupe to ride very well, but this one doesn’t really. Like I said before, the suspension has a mind of its own. It handles the bumps well and it is almost perfectly half way between tameness and sportiness according to the graphs. But with a ride height like this and a maximum cornering force of 1.3g, you and your passengers will be shaken, not stirred (or maybe both) after about 15 minutes of driving. As a result, this is a truly relaxing car for long drives on the American highways or the German Autobahn, but on freeways or mountain roads, the steering is too responsive and the car is a bit too much of a handful to be really comfortable.


Handling (5 stars)

The FA Claymore has very responsive steering and it feels very sporty overall. The only minus points worth mentioning are for a not very responsive engine and for the car being kind of a thorough bred through the corners with the traction control turned off, which of course us test drivers have.


Refinement (4 stars)

The Claymore is decently refined. You get a healthy amount of sound insulation inside, but when you step outside of the car, you notice that the V8 makes a very nice and properly loud noise. While driving along, you hear a decent V8 baseline but it’s not too loud for you or the passengers.


Equipment (5 stars)

Inside, this car is nothing short of automotive paradise. It’s got everything, except for a stability control. The safety features are “only” Premium, but I really felt at home in this car right as I stepped inside.


Quality (5 stars)

This is another perfect score for the Claymore. The interior is not only luxurious but also very well made, and so is all the equipment this car has.


Reliability (5 stars)

Reliability is another one of the Claymore’s strengths. The engine may not be very responsive or particularly powerful (402hp out of a 5.9L is not a whole lot these days), it’ll keep going and going.


Running Costs (5 stars)

For a V8 luxury cruiser, I have to say this is actually a very affordable car. The fuel consumption of 7.6l/100km is less than a BMW M235i, but the Claymore makes more power, a better noise, and is better equipped. Also, the annual service is only about 2.500$ because the engine is fairly easy to work on.


Safety (4 stars)

The carbon fibre chassis and panels on this car make it very solid should you have an accident. There’s also plenty of driver aids to prevent them from happening. In fact, this car very barely didn’t get the 5-star rating, and that’s only because it comes with Premium safety equipment rather than Advanced.



Overall (5 stars)

This was sooo close, but the Claymore barely managed to achieve the 5-star overall rating which rarely happens. While it did score 5 stars on almost all categories, the ride comfort is definitely not as high as it should be for a car like this. But if you can live with that, or if you want a comfortable highway/Autobahn cruiser which you can take to the track occasionally, then this is your car. As a daily driver, however, I’d rather have the Aston as it rides better and offers about the same acceleration and top speed, and it looks better in my opinion.

Pros:
- Equipment
- Fast steering
- Flexible engine
- Fuel consumption
- Reasonable service costs

Cons:
- Ride Comfort
- Gearing
- Low engine responsiveness
- Rather low tameness
- No stability control

[utopian201]

In the Energent Stallion ST review, it was given 3 stars for a reliabilty rating of 70.9, but this car gets 5 stars for 75.9. Is that the correct difference in stars given there are only 5 reliability points between them? Or are there other factors that contribute to the reliability rating?

[Jakgoe]

Great review, terrific car, good job!

[TheTom]

In the Energent Stallion ST review, it was given 3 stars for a reliabilty rating of 70.9, but this car gets 5 stars for 75.9. Is that the correct difference in stars given there are only 5 reliability points between them? Or are there other factors that contribute to the reliability rating?

The reliability score bandwith is very narrow, the Stallion ST was almost a 4-star, and the Claymore was just reliable enough for the 5-star. It's that tight, but i can't change it.

Great review, terrific car, good job!

Thank you!

[Janekk]

How about using half stars? 1-5 scale isn't granular enough methinks.

[np1993]

Awesome review!

I hate to be 'THAT" guy, but any updates on the hot hatch review?

[aidan7777]

Thanks for the review!

[Cheeseman]

In the Energent Stallion ST review, it was given 3 stars for a reliabilty rating of 70.9, but this car gets 5 stars for 75.9. Is that the correct difference in stars given there are only 5 reliability points between them? Or are there other factors that contribute to the reliability rating?

The formulas get changed every now and again when I feel it is too easy to get high or low scores. Nearly every single car that was coming in had 4 or 5 star reliability, so I made it harder to get that score. I am considering a change for it though, because it is now pretty tight between things. 71 is the minimum for 4-star reliability, 75.5 is the minimum for 5-star reliability (for now).

How about using half stars? 1-5 scale isn't granular enough methinks.

I am not changing the famous 5 star rating!

I hate to be 'THAT" guy, but any updates on the hot hatch review?

Hopefully it will be posted on Sunday, but I can guarantee that my part will be done today.

[EnryGT5]

*heavy breathing intensifies*

[TheTom]

My last review went online yesterday, yet here I am with another one. This time I’ll take a closer look at the

2014 Willow V-series 2.6







This is a car that seeks to rival the Audi A6, the Porsche Panamera GTS and the BMW 750i, so we’ll go into the details and find out how it compares.


Performance (3 stars)

The 0-100km/h time of 4.4 seconds is definitely on par with Europe’s best. However, the gearing is fairly short and it’s a 7-speed manual gearbox for whatever reason. On top of that, the top speed of 261km/h is not electronically limited, it just runs out of juice. This problem is caused by the 2.6L turbocharged Inline 4, apparently this is how Willow Automotive does Downsizing. The little I4 turbo is neither very responsive nor very smooth, and the turbo only kicks in at roughly 4000RPM, below that you get no torque whatsoever. Once the turbo has spooled up, though, you get a rather nice torque plateau and a smooth power band at the top of the RPM range. Let me talk a little bit more about the gearing. You need 3rd gear to reach 100km/h but the final ratio makes for a nice overdrive, granting good fuel economy. However, once you get into 5th gear, which is at about 160km/h, the engine doesn’t feel that strong any more, and you wish for a bit more capacity or engine flexibility.


Ride Comfort (2 stars)

In the Willow V-series 2.6, you really want to avoid bumps or rough surface, as the suspension is rather sharp and the car sits only 233mm from the ground, which is too low for an executive car like this. But there are also some positive things about this car in this section, namely the very low body roll of only 3.60° and the 50mm tire profile (on Hard Long Life tires). That, however, is not enough to outweigh the stiff suspension and low ride height.


Handling (3 stars)

With how stiff the suspension is, you would expect this car to handle very well. Strangely enough, it doesn’t. The reasonable tameness and low body roll make it pleasant through the corners, but an average of just barely over 1g and the sincere lack of engine responsiveness make this large car anything else but agile or dynamic. That’s also why it doesn’t feel very sporty overall, as you can see in the main stats.


Refinement (4 stars)

The engine may not be very responsive or torquey in low RPMs, but it is very quiet, thanks to the two reverse flow mufflers. There’s also a good amount of sound insulation inside, but it’s not convincing enough to justify a 5-star rating in this category.


Equipment (4 stars)

The V-series 2.6 comes with all driver aids known to man, and also advanced safety features. The Premium entertainment options are adequate, but not extraordinary in this car class.


Quality (5 stars)

Despite the Premium entertainment options, I have to say the interior is very well-made and nice. Luxury interior just like you would wish for in every car. Leather, polished aluminium and many other fine materials is what you get inside this car.


Reliability (3 stars)

Now, a heavily turbocharged I4 which revs to 7700RPM is not going to be very reliable, we knew that. But other than that, especially the body panels will last for a long time because plastic can’t rust.


Running Costs (4 stars)

The fuel economy of the Willow V-series 2.6 is adequate, compared to its rivals. 9.0L/100km in a car that makes 460hp is reasonably low. Service costs are not too high for a car of this power level. Roughly 2.400$ per year is not cheap but fairly reasonable for a car in this class.


Safety (5 stars)

Willow Automotive has done everything to compensate for the polymer body panels and Aluminium chassis. All driver aids currently available, and Advanced safety equipment inside barely manage to make this car achieve a 5-star rating in this category.


Overall (4 stars)

Despite the fact that I don’t really know what this car is because it’s neither particularly sporty nor particularly comfortable, it is overall quite good. The V-series 2.6 has a very nice and well-made interior and the downsizing makes for affordable running costs. That being said, a car that will probably cost somewhere around 75.000€ has to offer a little bit more than that to be truly great.

Pros:
- Good 0-100km/h time
- Good fuel economy
- Affordable running costs
- Great interior
- Lots of driver aids

Cons:
- Poor engine responsiveness
- Stiff suspension
- Weird gearbox and gear ratios
- Low engine smoothness
- Plastic panels

[CNSpots1]

Ah yes, that thing is horribly outdated and the car took a more comfort-economy oriented balance in the actual production model.

[aidan7777]

You're telling me. My car was designed in 1988 and had "2014" slapped on it!

[USDMFTW]

You're telling me. My car was designed in 1988 and had "2014" slapped on it!

Toyota yaris?
*snickers

*awaits hatchback review*

[Cheeseman]

*awaits hatchback review*

I know. I know.

WIZZY!!!