[Magesmiley]

Racer, I think you're running into one of the biggest issues that plagued Car Wars: conflicting rules. Half the time these were intentional changes and half the time they were caused by oversights and editing issues. How to tell which is which? That's the real trick.

Scott doesn't seem interested in trying to get these things cleared up for 4E (as he is focused on 6E), so the best guidance you're probably going to find is the advice of those here on the forums. (Scott does occasionally give a stamp of approval to the items in the Classic Errata thread though, which is as close to an official correction on some of these things that you'll find). For the rest of the issues, you'll often find conflicting opinions.

Here's some things that I look at when trying to figure out if something is a deliberate change or an editing error:

1. Take a look at any published Q&A or commentary. Often these have the most in-depth explanations. Unfortunately these are few and far between in the later years of Car Wars.
2. Look at any prior versions of the rule or item. Is the text significantly different or just carried forward. In the latter case, other rules changing often had unintended effects on text which was carried forward. Was a new paragraph (which typically means new rules) or is the change a rephrasing of the prior rule (and if so, why might someone have changed it).
3. Take a look at other related rules and see if they offer any help.
4. Look at discussions about problems in the rules and try to figure out the history of the changes. Knowing how rules like concussions, component armor, and laser guidance evolved helps to figure out how they are supposed to work and what is the current version.
5. Take a look at how major of an update a published source was. Is it mostly just lifted from the prior version or were there major rules/item updates in it?
6. In the case of UACFH, look for an "improved" in the item's name in its entry. That is a dead giveaway that any changes are intentional.

Myself, I generally treat UACFH as the most definitive set of rules for items unless there is something blatantly wrong. Followed by the latest Compendium. Others have a different system.

FWIW, this lack of rules consistency (coupled with the rise of CCGs) is IMO really what caused the game's decline. People simply couldn't figure out and agree on how the game was supposed to work. I don't think the plethora of options was really the issue. Deckbuilding in CCGs is very similar to car design in Car Wars, and CCGs seem to have proven this claim very wrong - people love having new and different ways of dismantling their opponents. Having tight, consistent rules on the other hand is really important. And doubly so in today's market.