I think it needs to be pointed out that four cars with two characters does not amount to enough data to prove or disprove whether cars can be objectively sorted into a nesting hierarchy.
If we think about it we can see that not all characters can be sorted into a nesting hiearchy even for living organisms. So the fact that two handpicked characters from vehicle data also fails to yield a nesting hierarchy is not evidence that NO vehicle data can be sorted into an objective nesting hiearchy.
The problem is that some rather exhaustive work needs to be done to really generate a large sample of vehicle characters such that it could be said that, if we pick a substantial sample of vehicle character data at random from this larger set and try to sort them into a nesting hiearchy, then our failure to do so could be said to have some evidential force. And conversely if we DO end up with a nesting hiearchy, then the creationist argument would that character data from designed objects also exhibit objective cladistic structure now have some force behind it.
But it’s the creationists job to do this work. It is their claim that vehicle data can objectively be sorted into a nesting hiearchy. That can’t be proven by handpicking a couple of potential character states using four vehicles. They need to throw some meat on this argument by increasing the sample size. More vehicles, more characters.
Try 30 vehicles and out of the total list of characters(of which there could be hundreds, or thousands, or millions), pick something like 20 - 40 different ones at random. NOW start to sort them into a nesting hiearchy.