I mean it halucinates sooo much. But the layout is good. I have a different prompt. But like do you have suggestions on how to fix the first one? Like the break has wheel spokes. The enging is the wrong way, the gearbox is beside the engine? The emergency exit mechanism is outside the vihicle. Like its a mess. And I dont know much about suspension but tat is probably off too. You're running into one of the hardest image-gen problems: A vehicle cutaway is not really an illustration task. It's a CAD task pretending to be an illustration task. The model is very good at: visual storytelling industrial design aesthetics infographic layouts "engineering vibes" It is much worse at: kinematic correctness drivetrain routing suspension geometry packaging constraints actual mechanical relationships So what happened is exactly what I'd expect: What the model got right Sleeper narrative Capability layering Visual hierarchy Color coding Technical-document aesthetic "Secretly overbuilt" feeling What it got wrong Engine orientation Gearbox placement Driveshaft routing Suspension geometry Brake system details Roll cage integration Emergency mechanism placement Structural load paths In other words: It understood the story but not the machine. For a project like T1 I'd actually split the problem. Pass 1 — Capability Poster Don't show internals. Show: Stock 740 Capability rings Mission profile Tier structure The AI is excellent at this. Pass 2 — Engineering Layers Create separate images: Chassis Layer Only show: shell reinforcement rails cross bracing roll cage pickup point reinforcement No engine. No suspension. No drivetrain. Powertrain Layer Only show: Saab B204/B234 M90 adapter plate clutch driveshaft Nothing else. Suspension Layer Only show: front suspension rear suspension coilovers mounting points geometry Nothing else. Then combine them later. The AI is dramatically better when each image only contains one engineering system. Another trick: Replace vague terms with spatial constraints. Instead of: Custom driveshaft connecting M90 output to rear axle write: Longitudinal driveshaft running centrally inside transmission tunnel from rear of M90 gearbox to live rear axle differential. Instead of: Fuel surge tank write: Fuel surge tank mounted in spare wheel well behind rear axle. Instead of: Mechanical emergency door opener write: Ratchet spring emergency door release integrated inside driver door cavity, invisible from exterior. The model needs physical anchors. The biggest improvement for your specific use case would probably be: Stop asking for a cutaway. Ask for an exploded engineering poster. Because then the AI doesn't need to solve packaging. For example: Body shell floating above chassis Powertrain floating beside car Suspension assemblies separated Fuel system separated Callout arrows Now the gearbox can be beside the engine because it is intentionally exploded. The image becomes: Engineering documentation instead of X-ray photograph and the hallucinations become much less noticeable. Ironically, for your gallery stress test, an exploded-view poster is also better because it contains more recoverable structure. A future system could infer: vehicle type engine choice transmission choice capability philosophy emergency doctrine reinforcement strategy without needing the AI to correctly solve every weld and bracket in a single impossible cutaway rendering. The other thing I notice is that your most interesting idea isn't actually the Saab engine or the M90. It's the Capability Layers panel. That's the part that felt closest to the B1C3 doctrine. The vehicle isn't really "a car." It's a physical manifestation of: Mobility → Self-Sufficiency → Incident Response → Extended Operations That hierarchy is something the model can represent much more reliably than suspension geometry. --- Thats good. But the mood is off. Too much digital reference. This one runs on alchohol you can make your self and the emergency exit is manual and mechanical. This car can run without electronics. I think you've identified something important: The generated image interpreted your vehicle as a modern resilience platform. Your doctrine for the 740 sounds more like: appropriate technology + mechanical sovereignty + graceful degradation. Those are very different aesthetics. The AI saw: capability rings emergency vehicle resilience and jumped to: digital overlays command center vibes tactical preparedness modern systems But your description points toward something closer to: farmer mechanic expedition traveler civil defense volunteer remote village engineer The capability is high, but the technology level is intentionally low. I'd actually rename the capability layers. Current version: Mechanical Independence Emergency Resilience Long-Range Reliability Extreme Conditions Survival These sound like a military procurement document. Maybe instead: Layer 1 Repairability Can be fixed with hand tools. Layer 2 Mechanical Autonomy Operates when electronics fail. Layer 3 Sustained Mobility Keeps moving when support systems disappear. Layer 4 Civil Resilience Useful when normal infrastructure becomes unavailable. Notice the shift. The focus becomes: "How long can I continue functioning?" instead of "How advanced is my emergency response capability?" Visually I'd also change the rings. Not holograms. Not glowing circles. Think: topographic contour lines engineering drafting circles compass bearings old aviation navigation charts survey maps Almost like the rings were drawn by an engineer with a pencil. The center seal could become: MECHANICAL FIRST instead of: BUILT FOR ANY EMERGENCY Because that's the actual doctrine I'm hearing. The alcohol fuel point is another clue. Most people hear: "alternative fuel" You seem to mean: "fuel producible under degraded infrastructure." That's not a performance modification. That's a resilience modification. Same with the manual door release. Most emergency vehicle imagery assumes: more systems. Your philosophy is: fewer failure points. That's much closer to the classic expedition philosophy behind vehicles like a heavily prepared Toyota Land Cruiser 70 Series than a modern tech-heavy response truck. If I were rewriting the poster, I'd make it feel like a museum exhibit documenting a tool that was built to survive scarcity: VOLVO 740 PROJECT Repairability Mechanical Autonomy Sustained Mobility Civil Resilience Footer: "Complexity is optional. Mobility is not." That feels much closer to the story you're actually telling. Yes much better framing. Footer is landing. I think the reason it lands is that it's describing a constraint, not advertising a capability. A lot of preparedness imagery says: Look how much stuff I have. Your vehicle concept is closer to: What happens when the stuff stops working? That's a very different worldview. Some footer variants that stay in that lane: Complexity is optional. Mobility is not. When systems fail, movement remains. Preparedness begins where dependencies end. The mission is movement, not technology. Built to continue when support disappears. Repairability is a capability. Independence is engineered, not declared. Resilience starts with fewer failure points. The best backup system is the one you can understand. What you can repair, you can trust. The one that feels most "740 Project" to me is: What you can repair, you can trust. because it immediately explains: manual door release mechanical redundancy alcohol-capable fuel system simple driveline field repairability without listing any of them. The other thing I would change is the center seal. Instead of: BUILT FOR ANY EMERGENCY which sounds like a product brochure, I'd make it something like: MECHANICAL FIRST or FIELD REPAIRABLE or DEPENDENCY REDUCED or even CAN YOU FIX IT HERE? The last one is interesting because it converts the entire vehicle into a design question. In fact, if I were reverse-engineering the doctrine from the vehicle, the capability layers might become: Repairability Can I fix it here? Autonomy Can I keep moving alone? Continuity Can I keep operating without support? Resilience Can I adapt when assumptions fail? That starts sounding suspiciously close to a B1C3 artifact rather than a car poster. The vehicle becomes a physical implementation of the doctrine instead of a vehicle that merely carries the doctrine. That's a much stronger story.