Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

CSR121 - Kool Aid and Frozen Pizza


#230

“New”.


#231

Oldn’t


#232

I have done around 15-20 CSRs (didn’t keep exact count), and the best I have had is a top 5. The competition here is very high, anything in the top 1/3 is really good IMO. I still get insta-binned for rules, my fault, and still hurts. Hang in there new guys, the secret is trial and error.


#233

I should have sent the more reliable version of my motor instead of the one I butchered to confirm with more reasonable mileages. Curse that mileage issues till the day I die


#234

I’ve won one of these back in the Kee engine days, but since then I’ve kind of been around high rankings and low rankings. Part of it is my refusal to part with company lore.


#235

I’ve been around for a while, but there are some large gaps, looking at sent messages:
CSR20, 22-23, 31-33, 36-39, 50, 52-55, 57-63, 78, 90-91, 94, 99-101, 113, 115-116 & now with 121, If my count is correct, 121 is my 32nd CSR Entry, and IIRC I never made it past the binning into the finals, or at least not in a while.
Edit: Attempted to enter, some (at least 1, maybe 2) was sent too late.


#236

Bump, any updates?


#237

Damn! I’d just gotten into Design Zen, and was busy making a 4 seat coupé based off of a really weird 50 MPG (UK) saloon made by my Italian supercar company that I did a while back, and then I saw the date of this post… xD

Still, it was fun to read through all these, and hopefully I won’t miss CSR122 due to being on another design hiatus!


#238

its been quite a while, might need to get ready for biiig elimination… might be from 25 to 5 cars


#239

CSR121 Binnings part 3.

May, 2011.
Finals are over, and most students have returned home for the summer, but quite a few stick around for summer classes or just to avoid home. Kayla has not returned home; she’s decided to get a summer job in preparation for the new car. But she’s barely any closer to deciding.

On a warm Wednesday afternoon, a few of Kayla’s friends swing by her apartment, as her complex includes access to a pool. Kayla explains to one of her friends, Steve, a fellow gearhead, that she’s interested in a sports car, but can’t narrow down the choices.

S: “Hell yeah, what kind of stuff are you looking at?”

K: “Too many things dude.”

S: “Like what though?”

K: “I don’t want to list them all out now. But if you’re not heading home for the summer, once I start actually going to see the cars in person you’re welcome to come along”

S: “Yeah man, I’ll be in town at least through Maymester. But if you’re really having a hard time narrowing it down, here’s a trick my dad told me when shopping for a fun car. Make a list with the cars. For each car, write down your answers to two questions about it. One: ‘Why do you want it?’ then Two: ‘Then why haven’t you bought it already?’ It’s basically pros and cons, but it’s a little more engaging I think.”

K: “Alright I’ll try that.”

Later that day, Kayla’s back at her computer, giving Steve’s system a shot.

Editor’s note: When I reference “average” from this point forward, it’s only in relation to the remaining vehicles, with already binned vehicles removed, and if you want to get stats-nerdy, it’s really the median rather than the average i’m using, but that doesn’t sound good when writing.

1992 Lynx La Course @mart1n2005

Why do you want it? It’s cool looking, very unique, and has excellent driving dynamics.

Well then, why haven’t you bought it already? It’s rear engined, and I’m a little afraid of that, and it effectively rules out drifting (safely) with it. It’s not as reliable as I’d like, and they’re a little expensive to run.

The 1992 Lynx La Course is out. It’s really quite a good car, with excellent sportiness that doesn’t sacrifice driveability or comfort, and a very realistic engine choice with an NA 12v SOHC V6. Reliability figures are a little lower than average, and running costs are a little higher than average. While the balance between comfort, drivability, and sportiness is excellent, it doesn’t excel enough to outshine the FR competitors.

MAHG Silhouette 3000GT24v @S31

Why do you want it? It’s cheap up front, and a very sporty drive without sacrificing too much comfort

So why haven’t you bought it already? Very high running costs, straight pipe, some reliability concerns, and not a fan of it’s looks.

The 1989 MAHG Silhouette 3000GT24v is out. It finds a good sportiness/drivability/comfort balance, but running costs are very high, and trim reliability is below average. The design clearly apes the Z32 300ZX, but there are much better looking cars than this in the competition. Long tube headers and no mufflers on a 2.5” full exhaust is a little weird, and make for a very loud car.

1993 Yuro Overture Type LS @variationofvariables

Why do you want it? It’s within budget with low mileage, sporty handling, and a spacious interior.

So why haven’t you bought it yet? Awkward styling, comparatively slow, rustprone, top of budget.

The 1993 Yuro Overture Type LS is out. I see that this was smashing a 4th and 5th gen Prelude together into a single, fictional RWD Prelude, and while the end result is impressive, I would be lying if I said it was pretty. It does find a solid sport/drive/comfort balance, but with it’s larger size and 186hp NA 4 cylinder, straight line performance is unimpressive. It’s got weak environmental resistance and below average trim reliability as well, and it’s another very-loud straight piped NA car with headers.

1989 BT Motors Panthera STT @EddyBT

Why do you want it? Big, useful station wagon combines good performance with everyday usability.

So, why haven’t you bought it already? All aluminum body is a real concern.

the 1989 BT Motors Panthera brings to the table an impressive balance of sportiness, comfort, and drivability, although a little low on the sportiness scale. The engine is really good; a 2.5l SOHC 12v turbo I6 with very little lag, and a solid 215hp and 211 lb ft or torque. But in a spacious wagon, it seems like the figures might be a little short on the performance scale… not the case due to an incredibly low 1278kg weight. How’s this wagon so light? All aluminum panels. Unfortunately I’ve got to dock this car’s finishing position due to that, an aluminum bodied wagon in 1989 isn’t realistic.

1985 Silver-York Accolate Zacspeed Edition @ProfessorP3PP3R & @chiefzach2018

Why do you want it? Just look at it. This Silver-York Zacspeed is so freaking cool. I can imagine me in thing, just cruising around town, top down, looking cool as fuck. And it comes with the factory hardtop. It would be cool as hell fighting Silver-York stereotypes as a college-age girl driving one of these instead of a grey-haired white guy.

So, why haven’t you bought it already? Despite the Zacspeed treatment, this is still a classic Silver-York, so it might not be the most willing partner out in the mountains or on the track. Driving dynamics aren’t very strong. Running costs aren’t cheap either, as you might expect from a luxury car from the mid 80s, and fuel economy is poor.

The styling is so cool; so sleek, very contemporary for its era, and unmistakably a wonderfully gaudy sports version of an American personal luxury car, with a sweet ground effects package; period-cool turndown exhaust tips peeking out of a rear bumper lip are an especially cool touch. Credit where credit is due, this was one of few solid axle’d entries, and one of even fewer pushrod engined entries, but reliability figures still come in just a little better than average, and, similar to the EcaMobile Ace, the luxury 80s interior hurt running costs, and this comes in on the high side there as well. The driving dynamics fall a little short among other competitors; it doesn’t find as good a balance, as sportiness is rather low and, while comfort is solid, it’s still less comfort than quite a few more sporty cars. While I don’t car too much about fuel economy, this one turns in less than 11 MPG, which is a hard pill to swallow.

1983 Mitsushita Cassiopeia 1.6 LX @conan

Why do you want it? Beautiful classic sports car styling, very cheap running costs and very cheap upfront price.

Why haven’t you bought it already? It’s pretty heaviliy modified already. Compared to other options, or even the Anhultz, it’s lacking sportiness and performance. I’d probably need to find a new exhaust for it too, because the ultra-loud exhaust would lose its novelty fast with daily driving, especially since it’s not an especially comfortable car as it is.

The 1983 Mitsushita Cassiopeia 1.6 LX is out. This car is interesting, and of all the entries, was the one that took the most liberties with modifications, providing the classic sports car with many more modern features such as fuel injection, a 5 speed manual and lsd, upgraded brakes, upgraded suspension, aftermarket exhaust, upgraded head unit, fiberglass hood, and aftermarket wheels. Despite all the modifications, the car still comes out slower and less sporty than the other options. Running costs are inexpensive and reliability is about average. The aftermarket exhaust is too loud.

1983 Anhultz Dione XII Flex Tape Edition @Elizipeazie


You all know what an Anhultz Dione looks like, so here’s just my favorite part

Why do you want it? It’s pretty sweet looking, and such a large fastback hatch would make it a pretty useful everyday car. They’re damn reliable too, fast as hell for 1983, and this one is super cheap

So, why haven’t you bought it already? They’re expensive to run, and they’re not quite as sporty as other options, and this one’s already got almost 234 thousand miles on it.

the 1983 Anhultz Dione XII Flex Tape Edition is out. Reliable, fast, and inexpensive, but a little low on sportiness, high running costs, and high mileage combine to knock this one out of the running.

1996 Hokuto Senera VTi @On3CherryShake and Kurokama SC-C 2.0 Zenki @ST1Letho

“These cars are so similar to each other, I can compare them together.”

Why do you like them? Low mileage, spacious, useful sedans, with turbos and 6 speed manuals.

So why haven’t you bought either of them yet? Lack of sportiness, heavy, top of budget.

It’s hard to talk about either of these cars without talking about the other. Their stats are extremely similar. They weigh within one kg of each other! Style-wise, the both are attractive and inoffensive mid 90s designs. The Kurokama is sportier overall, and has fantastic styling in the rear. It looks like what i’d imagine a Pontiac would look like if Pontiac were Japanese, and I do mean that as a compliment. But the Hokuto is prettier from the front, and is no slouch from other angles either, with very pretty rear taillights and a more luxurious look. Barely anything between them on that front either. From the perspective of a driving experience, the Senera has is slightly sportier to drive, partially due to the SC-C’s electric power steering, but the SC-C is a little faster, pushing 24 more hp from it’s 2.0 liter turbo 4 vs the Senera’s 2.7l turbo 5 tuned for regular. Both come very close to the top of the budget, and the Senera has slightly fewer miles on it, but the SC-C is cheaper to run and more reliable. Both are more along the lines of high tech family cars than sport sedans, and both do the job well. Nearly identical for that matter. Between the two, for my needs, the Kurokama comes out the better of the two, but neither is sporty enough or fast enough to stay in the running.

1992 SSV Galaxy GT-Apex @george_m997

Why do you want it? This thing’s a rocketship. Tied for the fastest car to 60 of all the entrants, and it’s sporty handling dynamics are unparalleled.

So why haven’t you bought it already? Running costs are really high, and they quite simply aren’t reliable.

the 1992 SSV Galaxy GT-Apex is out. On one hand, this thing looks like a shoe-in for a top competitor. It holds both the highest sportiness and highest drivability figures of the competition, it’s tied for the fastest 0-60 time of the competition, and comes in more than $800 below the price cap with a pretty-low 132k miles. That all sounds great! But running costs very high, just over $1,200, and reliability for both Trim and Engine are very poor.

1991 Avantii Raurus S @EnCR

Why do you want it? Quite reliable, pretty fast, and a relatively useful daily driver as a sedan, (albeit considerably smaller than the HokutoKama twins), and sweet V8 sounds.

So why haven’t you bought it yet? Styling and driving dynamics aren’t soul-stirring, slightly high running costs.

A mixed bag, but cheap price, strong reliability, and solid performance are a hard combo to argue against. An all iron, 4.1 liter 2v SOHC V8 is a solid engine choice as well, providing excellent reliability with good power and torque. However, lower sportiness (higher than the HokutoKama twins but still well below top competitors) and dull styling make it a safe choice that doesn’t pull at the heartstrings of an enthusiast. The styling feels like it is a good start, but it feels unfinished, lacking badging and detailing. The rear taillight cluster is an interesting idea but also needs more work to feel complete.

1990 Morton Gambol Turbo @CriticalSet9849

Why do you want it? Big, useful car with solid power, solid driving dynamics, and cool styling, enhanced by it’s sweet body kit.

So, why haven’t you bought it already? Long gearing makes for poor acceleration. A jack of all trades but master of none.

This is pretty good at most things, but doesn’t excel at anything either. Very middle of the road everywhere but acceleration. Weird gear spacing and narrow tires make for weaker acceleration figures than it’s power to weight ratio would suggest. I really like the style of it, including the cool body kit with deep spoilers and the roof wing, but I have to mention that it looks dated for a brand new car in 1990. Detractors here are the 266 hp turbo engine running on regular gas, and partial aluminum panels, both unrealistic choices.

1989 Mondo 420E SL @Ezdmn

Why do you want it? This is a harcore sports car. Extremely light weight, low running costs, 8000 rpm gem of an NA V6, cool styling.

So, why haven’t you bought it already? All aluminum body is a scary proposition should I get in an accident. Despite the low weight, no power steering might be an issue for me, and the lack of ABS could be scary in looser road conditions.

While many IRL cars of this era did not have ABS, very few entrants didn’t include it, but this is one. When combined with the lack of power steering, this might be an especially hard car to drive for a 20 year old girl. Sportiness is strong though, maintenance costs are low, and trim reliability is above average. An all aluminum body is a bit of a stretch as far as realism is concerned for a 4 seat coupe in 1989.

1990 Kasai A2000 Turbo @goblin95

Why do you want it? It’s got a low price, super low running costs, nice styling, and seating for 5.

Why haven’t you bought it already? Despite its appearance and the fact that it’s a RWD coupe, it’s not actually very sporty to drive. Reliability is just OK.

Like the Morton, the 1990 Kasai A2000 Turbo is a car with relatively few flaws, but few strengths as well. Surprisingly, it’s the least sporty car remaining, but it’s running costs are quite affordable, with fairly average engine reliability and slightly below average trim reliability. Styling is very neat, tidy and realistic, and even goes so far as to include surface rust on the rear wheel well, a really cool touch. Overall this is a good car, but we’re at the point now that I have to nitpick to choose between the remainders.

1996 GMV Criterion TTS @Endfinity

Why do you want it? Sporty fast wagon with relatively low running costs and low mileage.

So, why haven’t you bought it already? Within $13 of the price cap. Below average reliability and surprisingly low comfort for a wagon.

This one looks pretty good at a glance. It’s quite sporty, it’s fast, it’s running costs are low, and the mileage is low, and the comfort is not terrible, but low for a wagon. There’s some weirdness in the engineering choices here; A station wagon with partial aluminum panels is pretty damn advanced for 1996, but despite that high tech choice, it still runs rear drum brakes. It’s got an impressive engine, pushing 100hp per liter from it’s 20v twin cam I5 turbo, but despite being such a high performance engine pushing the 100hp/liter mark, it’s tuned for regular gas. The styling is pretty cool, and the interior is partially modeled, which is an impressive feat, and the overall look is not bad, albeit a little messy in some places and a touch modern for 1996.

1996 Honghu Beifeng 3.0S @yangx2

Why do you like it? Incredibly comfortable and spacious car that surprisingly can hold its own on twisty roads. Very low mileage as well. Unique styling.

So why haven’t you bought it yet? Not as sporty as the other options. Near the top of the budget.

The 1996 Honghu Beifeng is impressive. The highest comfort of all the entrants by a massive 6 point margin, but with sportiness on par with the Avantii, the sport/drive/comfort balance is pretty strong here, but, as you may expect from the Chinese personal luxury coupe, leans more heavily on the side of that balance that Kayla is less interested in. Reliability slightly above average, and it’s a 1996 with low miles. It is a coupe, but it looks good from a useability standpoint based on sheer size; it’s the biggest car here, larger than even the Anhultz and the HokutoKama twins. Running costs are low too. So it’s a strong competitor, but can it overcome its lack of sportiness and high-end price?

1992 Aria Kaze GT 2+2 @Boiled_Steak

Why do you want it? Sporty, low miles, fast, and neat, understated styling.

So, why haven’t you bought it yet? Very close to the top of the budget, pretty poor reliability figures.

This car could be a very top competitor if it were more reliability, but both trim and engine reliability are low when compared to the remaining company. It’s sport/drive/comfort balance is excellent, and running costs are acceptable. Styling is cool. I really like the reshaping of the rear quarter window, which gives the car a very Supra-esqe appearance in profile, but I do wish it were a little more aggressive with a wing or a body kit. Nothing Kayla can’t modify herself, though. Aside from the reliability concerns, this is a strong entry.

HERE IT COMES, ITS TWIN TIME AGAIN: 1995 Rhisuki Kuesa GT5 @Repti and 1995 Forea Mezora @vouge

What do you like about them? Low mileage, low running costs, strong reliability, and comfortable.

So, why haven’t you bought one of them yet? A little short on excitement.

So I thought the Hokuto and the Kurokama were similar, but then I looked at these two. Now THESE are twins. Both have all iron 24 valve, SOHC 6 cylinders. The 3 liter straight six in the Forea makes 10 more hp, at 210, but is 18 lb ft of torque short of the 3.3 liter flat six in the Rhisuki. Like the other pair, these two also score extremely similarly, but unlike the other twins, there’s not a ton of give and take between the two; unfortunately for the Rhisuki, the Forea betters it by the numbers. It’s a little more comfotable, it’s a little faster, it’s running costs are a little less, its reliability figures are better, and it’s noticeably sportier. The Rhusuki in comparison has only slightly better drivability, slightly lower mileage, and slightly better fuel economy to it’s name. Both cars impress with strong comfort, very strong reliability, and excellent running costs, but are a little slow. The Rhisuki falls out of the running earlier, due to it’s lack of sportiness; only about on par with the big Honghu. The Forea makes it a few places further, but still comes up short of the top of the field for sportiness and performance.

1992 Cascadia Hariken VT @thecarlover

Why do you like it? Excellent sporty driving dynamics, low mileage, cool styling with period-correct Transformers inspired paint scheme, and T-Top roof.

So why haven’t you bought it yet? Poor comfort, high running costs.

The 1992 Cascadia Hariken VT brings a lot of sportiness to the table, one of ther very highest. It’s a real enthusiast’s car. That said it’s sport/drive/comfort balance isn’t that great due to low comfort. It’s a cool looking car, and I like the T-Tops, but it’s a little simplistic compared to the cars that really wow in this competition. Like I said before, I’m starting to really nitpick to choose between what remains. 187 hp with a solid torque curve is a good engine, but is a little on the low side in this crowd, and both reliability figures are a little below average. It does come in around $3800 with only 135k miles on it, so it’s a strong competitor.

1990 Suisei Denreisha G2 @Falling_Comet

Why do you like it? Sporty drive, boat loads of power, low running costs, and an entry cost a full $1,800 below the price cap.

So why haven’t you bought it yet? Dismal comfort, slightly below average engine reliability.

This thing is hardcore. The first thing you see when you look at this is the huge power figure. 341hp. That’s a huge figure. The engine running costs are unsurprisingly high, but the trim running costs The car also has very low trim maintenance costs. Some of that cheapness, and the upfront cheapness, comes from it’s interior. Basic with basic cassette. It isn’t the absolute worst, but 13.3 comfort is right on the edge of barely tolerable. Styling is cool, with an aggressive front fascia, a deep character line along the shoulder and aggressive body kit. Aside from the crap interior and poor comfort, this is an excellent car, and the most enticing budget entry, but that comfort just can’t quite be overcome.

1994 GEC GS2 Turbo @abg

Why do you like it? Sporty, fast, low mileage.

So why haven’t you bought it yet? Boring styling, turbo lag, and engine reliability not on par with the top competitors.

This is a seriously impressive car. With top tier sportiness only very slightly shy of what the Hariken offers, this does so without the hefty running costs, more comfort, and much more straight line speed. So what are its drawbacks? Some minor technical ones; The 2 liter DOHC 4 cylinder doesn’t make 120 hp per liter without suffering some lag. It’s less lag than a lot of other competitors, but it’s more lag than any of the top entries. Same story on engine reliability; not bad on the grand scale of entries, but a little weak now that we’re at the top. Styling is the biggest drawback here though. It’s not ugly, but for such an exciting sports car, it’s looks don’t excite at all. There’s a nice lower fascia on the front bumper, but the rest of the car’s design has nothing going on beyond the basics. I hate to eliminate such a good car primarily on looks, but style was a strong priority, and the competition is tight up here.

“Steve was right. This helped. Now I’ve down to three cars. Let me contact the owners for a test drive.”

The test drive impressions of the finalists and the finale will appear later today. Congrats the the top 3, but also, congrats to everyone who made it this far at all. These are quite good cars.


#240

I’ll happily take a honorable mention - this was a tough round filled with lots of strong opposition, and I was lucky to even make it this far. And yet… Even if my car had more attractive exterior styling - a side vent or hood scoop would have helped - I would most likely have fallen short given that its engine is not as reliable or responsive as any of those found in the top three cars.

One thing’s for sure: Kayla had her work cut out just picking the top three cars of the 25(!) that were in contention up until now, and choosing a winner will be even more difficult for her, considering how good those are.


#241

tbh…
EVERY mileage based thing heavily favors newer cars…

either way: challenge done and i can put another one to the everlasting legacy of the dione


#242

as expected huh… i did sacrifice the running cost a bit for drivability and kits in the car, and most of the engine reliability to make it quick and has less mileage in the calculator tho, welp, made it until this far is already satisfying (mostly in this CSR Round) which is very tough… , btw, the last 3 really is the best one too tbh.


#243

Well bugger. 19 CSRs later it was about time I got myself throw into the bin due to minmax. I guess MGR didn’t raise an eyebrow at my body panels during CSR 99 considering I had a hand-made interior for that one…
I guess this is what I get for being lazy and cloning one of my old entries to repost. Seriously, it looked like the only complaint was the body panels.


#244

CSR121: FINAL

2 WEEKS LATER

Roughly 10 PM on a Sunday night. Kayla holds her phone to her ear as it rings on an outgoing call.

“I hope he’s still up”

“Hello?”

“Hey Dad, It’s Kayla.”

“Hey! Glad to hear from you. Did you set up those test drives?”

“Yeah, actually, one yesterday and two today.”

“What did you think? Tell me about them”

“The first was a 1990 Neubran Vitesse NR-Technik. The owner said it’s a German-spec model, and showed off a magazine cover the vehicle graced in the late 90s. The engine starts up smoothly and settles into a smooth idle. Taking off, turbo lag is minimal, and once one boost, throttle response is stellar thanks to the individual throttle bodies. The interior is sporty and nice, with a nice sound system and a tape deck. And it’s so cool looking. A pretty shade of purple overlays a well proportioned and handsome shape. It’s attractive, but purposeful, and has a cool aggressive low body kit.“

“What else”

“The 2nd car was a 1990 Edelgard Wyvern GTX. The owner was a brash, angry guy with a MAGA hat, and when me and my friend Steve went to go see it, the owner assumed he was the one who wanted to buy it. Steve had mentioned to me on the way there that those oddly run on just regular, and have the reputation of absolutely bulletproof reliability”

“Yes, that’s true, but they can have some rust issues depending on how it was used.”

“It starts and runs nicely. The idle is smoother than I’d have expected from a big V8, and it pulls really hard. Lots of low-end torque, but still pulls really hard all the way to redline. The ride was rougher than the Neubran, and although the interior was similar, the sound system was just OK. It has a pretty tall first gear, I accidentally stalled it during the test drive, but I think I would get used to it, and it’s more fun up in the mountains than the Neubran was. It looks pretty cool, but not Vitesse cool.”

“And you drove another one today?

“Yeah, a 1990 Seikatsu GR30 Turbo VX+. The owner was a really intense guy who was really nervous about handing the keys over to me because of my age, but he didn’t put up too much of a fight. He clearly loves the car. It’s got fewer miles and a cheaper price than the others. Oddly enough, it’s also tuned for regular. It’s a far more aggressive looking car than the other two, with a lower seating position and wider stance. Not quite as handsome as the Neubran but undoubtedly a spectacle on it’s own. The interior isn’t as nice as the other two, but is still nice, and has a better sound system than the Wyvern. Runs good, and has the lowest mileage of the three. No issues, it starts up nicely as well and has a slightly more lopey idle than the Nuebran, but it’s still a smooth-as-silk turbo I6. It’s not as instantaneously responsive as the Neubran was, but the engine’s got more punch and it makes for a really fast car. Not as fast as the Wyvern, but it pulls hard. The ride was nicer than the Wyvern, but not as nice as the Neubran, and it was especially crashy over road imperfections at the front wheels. It handles excellently and was a ton of fun to drive as well.”

“Do you have a favorite?”

“I’ve got to think it over dad.”

“Don’t wait too long. Used cars like these sell fast. If you want my opinion, I’m partial to the Neubran, it’s the safest option and the one I’m least afraid of you wrecking.”

“Thanks for the vote of confidence.”

“You know what I mean. If it were up to me you’d stick to the GTI. But I know the whole point of this purchase is to carve out some independence and I know that when I was your age, I bought myself a car that wasn’t half as safe as any of those three. You’re a smart girl; if these are the cars you want, I’m sure you’ve put enough thought into it, and if not, well, that’s a good life lesson too.”

“Thanks dad. I’ll keep you updated.”

Decisions, Decisions:

Style: Advantage Neubran. Subtle tweaks to the shape of the vehicle make the very-Japanese shaped body look fresh and convincingly German. The attention to detail in the detail is unparalleled; every grill, vent, light, and badge has more detail than initially meets the eye. The Seikatsu is no slouch either though. It’s wild and outlandish, and creates a mixture of angles and organic shapes that creates a hell of an impression, and succeeds in creating a car that looks like I can’t decide if it’s from the 80s or the 90s, and I couldn’t talk about this car without mentioning the vaporwave sunset taillamps. When the aggressiveness is combined with the car’s width, it looks closer to a supercar than an affordable sports car. The Edelgard is in its own right a good looking car, and like the Nuebran, making this very-Japanese shaped body look convincingly American is no small feat. The ducktail rear spoiler, charmingly gaudy “WYVERN” badging in the bumper, and rear louvers do the trick from the back, and the pinched character line and squared-off, hideaway headlamp front fascia all look quite nice, but when the other two set the bar so high, it’s Edelgard falls behind in this regard.

Fun to drive factor: advantage Edelgard. Despite it’s traditionally American solid rear axle, the Edelgard has sportier handling than the Nuebran and sportiness only negligibly less than the Seikatsu. It’s power to weight ratio exceeds that of the other two, with its torquey naturally aspirated V8, and gives the best acceleration times of the three. The Seikatsu isn’t far behind though, it is a touch sportier, and it’s not too far behind in acceleration tests. The Nuebran is the most pedestrian of the three, with the lowest sportiness, least power and torque, and heaviest weight. It’s no slouch in the grand scheme of all the entrants, and has nice throttle response thanks to it’s use of individual throttle bodies, richer, AFR, and premium fuel, but does fall behind the other finalists overall in the fun to drive factor.

Reliability and running costs: advantage Edelgard. Impressive once again, the Wyvern provided the highest trim reliability of the entire test at 72.3, and engine reliability nearly on par with the very best. Combined reliability scores come out to a massive 11.5 point advantage over the Nuebran and even more significant 13 point advantage over the Seikatsu. It has higher mileage than the other two, and unimpressive environmental resistance, but not enough to wither away that huge reliability advantage. Running costs for the Seikatsu are the cheapest, but by only $6 a year compared to the Edelgard, and when combined car and engine running costs are taken into account, there is still only a $14 per year between them. The Nuebran is more expensive, but still a fairly negligible $56.50 per year, and has slightly better trim reliability than the Seikatsu, and identical engine reliability to it, but higher mileage.

Well-Roundedness and Usability: advantage Neubran. The Nuebran is the most comfortable car of the three. It has more compliant suspension tuning and a slightly nicer interior and sound system combo than the other two. Although it uses Premium fuel to the other two’s regular, it has the lowest fuel costs, and cruises on the highway at a pretty good 2900 rpm at 75 mph. The Edelgard cruises well on the highway too, at 2800 rpm at 75 mph, but it’s gearing isn’t good around town due to a very tall first gear. A tall first is less troublesome with a large NA engine with excellent low end torque, but this is still quite a tall first gear. The Edelgard has a slightly less spacious interior, and while similarly appointed to the Neubran, it has lower quality sound system. Unsurprisingly, with it’s sold rear axle, the Edelgard isn’t as comfortable. The Seikatsu splits the difference between the two on comfort, but despite it’s ultra-sporty exterior, uses a more pedestrian standard interior compared to the sport interior found on the other two. It has an extremely stiff front sway bar and the lowest ride height of the three. The Seikatsu would aslo be the toughest to fit friends in, and it cruises at 75 mph at 3300 rpm. Fuel costs are less than that of the Edelgard, but more than the Neubran.

3 WEEKS LATER:

On a hot and sunny midsummer day, Kayla makes a spirited drive through the mountains. Windows down, and sunroof open, her ponytail whips around in the wind. Braking into a downhill left hander, she downshifts from 3rd to 2nd, attempting to heel-toe but she doesn’t quite have the hang of it yet in the new car. Even though she gooses the throttle too much for a smooth downshift, she’s not too annoyed with herself, because the throttle blip fills her ears with beautiful V8 music. On corner exit, she gooses the throttle and second, and the rear slightly breaks traction, but stays in check with only a little unwinding of the wheel input. “The GTI made things so easy,” she thinks to herself, “hustling this around is something I will learn. I’m not there yet. But this Edelgard should last forever if I take good care of it, so I should have plenty of time to learn this car like the back of my hand.”

Congratulations @Xepy, the 1990 Edelgard Wyvern GTX wins CSR121. With good looks, strong sportiness, excellent performance, and reliability far and above all of the other entrants, Kayla has selected to buy the Edelgard Wyvern GTX.

Top 10:

  1. 1990 Edelgard Wyvern GTX @Xepy
  2. 1990 Seikatsu GR30 Turbo VX+ @Tzuyu_main
  3. 1990 Neubran Vitesse NR-Technik @Ryan93 & @MGR_99
  4. 1994 GEC GS2 Turbo @abg7
  5. 1990 Suisei Denreisha G2 @Falling_Comet
  6. 1992 Cascadia Hariken VT @thecarlover
  7. 1992 Aria Kaze GT 2+2 @Boiled_Steak
  8. 1995 Forea Mezor @vouge
  9. 1996 Honghu Beifeng 3.0S @yangx2
  10. 1995 Rhusuki Kuesa GT5 @Repti

Superlatives:
Most Expensive initial price: 1985 Silver-York Accolade Zacspeed Edition, $43,900.
Least Expensive initial price: 1989 Shromet Ableton, $19,100.
Highest Mileage: 1989 Letto Cacca, 277,833 miles.
Lowest Mileage: 1995 Marossa Espada BTS, 110,513 miles.
Best Fuel Economy: 1989 Letto Cacca, 38.9 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 1985 Silver-York Accolade Zacspeed Edition, 10.2 mpg
Cheapest Service Costs: 1989 Shromet Ableton, $581.8
Most expensive Service Costs: Panamericana Gira Junior SR, $1813.9
Best 0-60: tie, 1992 SSV Galaxy GT-Apex and 1990 Edelgard Wyvern GTX, 5.47s
Worst 0-60: 1989 Shromet Ableton, 9.31s

Thank you to everyone who competed in this massive CSR, thank you! If your car made it today’s elims, take pride in that. Really strong competition and a lot of good cars.


#245

I was hoping you’d do a Best & Worse of stats at the end, glad to see my hopes of being most fuel efficient ended up happening, there’s a reason my engine never made much power! (Tuned for fuel economy, plus car should be light weight & therefore shouldn’t need a ton of power)


#246

Ayy, the podium streak has finally peaked on a first. Just make sure you do rustproofing Kayla lol

Anyways I do have an idea for hosting and some time to actually do so thanks to this whole pandemic thing, so please wait a day or two while I solidify my idea and write a ruleset up.

Edit: Also I’ll have to keep check of the openbeta to live, so it may be further delayed, but yeah should have the rules up soon enough


#247

Yooooooo congratulations @Xepy !

For my third CSR, second place is pretty great. I’ll take it.


#248

Hooray- my car wasn’t on the end car stats, so it was perfectly average!


#249

Congratulations @Xepy!

I’m glad to see Pepper and I won a couple of superlatives mmm, fuel… I can’t wait to see what happens next.