Still in the top 25, maybe not as mad as I thought the car was
Having survived 2 rounds of binning, I’m starting to think my car was just missed xD
survived again… phew, its getting tougher now tho
one of these days I’ll figure out how to survive a forum challenge
until then I’m content with sending in uncompetitive cars that I like and getting roasted for it.
as a new kid on the block, quite wanted to be in the runner up list at least once tho, hehehe
Wait, does that make me a new kid on the block too having participated in only two CSRs or does my account age disqualify me from that?
technically yes, u still only do 2 CSRs right? it means u still technically new to challenges and stuffs
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.
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
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.
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.
Bump, any updates?
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!
its been quite a while, might need to get ready for biiig elimination… might be from 25 to 5 cars
CSR121 Binnings part 3.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.