So you could have an inline 6.
You could have a turbocharged inline 6.
You could have an extremely efficient turbocharged inline 6!
But instead, you decided to ditch the turbo, cut the engine in half, but take all of this car:
Gordon! An econobox that stays true to its name!
“Gordon, you should actually cut down on the Magnesium! Your entire block is already made from it!”
Yes, actually, I just now noticed that I accidentally left the block on Magnesium. Well, still within the price limit 
We’re in the final stretch! Less than 3 hours left to go.
I have cars from:
@conan
@Dorifto_Dorito
@HowlerAutomotive
@Zabhawkin
@Ornate
@HighOctaneLove
@szafirowy01
@koolkei
@JohnWaldock
@titleguy1
@Leedar
@Der_Bayer
@TheMiltos21
@thecarlover
@strop
@4LGE
@cpufreak101
@rcracer11m
@harizvet1
If you’re not on that list, I don’t yet have your car.
Boyd Motors was also considering entering a substantially different vehicle into competition, but the revived ‘Pluton’ concept, a cut price GT car, was scrapped again owing to concerns of market viability.
Modelling and tests showed it would have achieved a 0-100 km/h time of 5.8 seconds, a top speed of 249 km/h and combined fuel economy of 4.68 l/100 km, thanks in part to an efficient 7-speed dual clutch transmission. Aside from such straight line performance at hybrid-level economy, the main attraction would have been the opportunity to own a V12 engine at such a modest price point; the low tax 2.2 litre naturally aspirated power plant was in fact the only entertainment provided in the vehicle, contributing to dubious marketability (drivers were expected to use their own devices for navigation). An AWD system with a viscous LSD provided some degree of off-road capability, permitting safer and more confident touring in rough and hazardous road conditions.
The price point was projected to be $22,680.
lol of course someone has to build a v12. it’s a tradition 
I like this competition, even though I probably didn’t win. 
I know it’s heresy to say around all the motorheads here, but trying to build around something besides just racing performance is interesting to me. Certainly encouraged a bit of learning.
I also came up with a premium comfort car, but I figure that probably wouldn’t have scored well much like that budget GT.
There are a couple of dark horses in this bunch. People who’ve been around a long time, who haven’t said very much on the forums lately. Probably because theyre hanging around on the chat.
Specifically I Wonder what @conan built
Well, it’s an hour past the deadline. Submissions are now closed! I’ll try to have some reviews out within a reasonable amount of time. Been a lot of spread between the vehicles.
Anyone want some fun facts about the cars?
Uhhh sure.
ALL the fun facts please 
I was going to post my advert but still not home. Don’t wait on my account but!
Number of Entries: 19
Most Common Driveline: Transverse FWD (13 cars)
Least Common Driveline: Transverse AWD (1 car)
Number of V6 Engines: 2
Number of Inline 6 Engines: 8
Number of Inline 4 Engines: 6
Number of Inline 3 Engines: 3
Lowest Redline: 5300 RPM
Highest Redline: 8000 RPM
Lowest Number of Gears: 4
Highest Number of Gears: 7
Slowest Test Track Lap: 175.52 seconds
Fastest Test Track Lap: 138.97 seconds
Smallest Engine: 1195 cc
Largest Engine: 3312 cc
Lowest Fuel Efficiency: 50 MPG
Highest Fuel Efficiency: 67.1 MPG
Number of Benchmark Cars: 2
Most Expensive: $25,900 (7 cars)
Least Expensive: $15,960 (1 car)
If anyone wants to know anything else, please, feel free to ask. Please try to keep the questions to Highest/Lowest or Most Common.
Most common tyre type comes to mind.
Also most common interior.
I’d love to see 0-100 and quarter mile stats too of that’s not too hard.
haha I snagged biggest engine, fastest around the track, lowest fuel efficiency and most expensive car all in one!
My engine is the smallest. 
Although, its redline is 8000, not 7600… maybe it’s so small that Madrias didn’t see it.
My bad, I overlooked that one in my sheet. Somehow misread it at 6000. I’ll correct that.
Also dying to know what somebody did to get 67MPG wtf lol. Strip out the entire interior? 
6 cyl car is more common than a 4 cyl… wut?
and i thought my 2.2l was a bit above average.
Most Common Tire Type: Hard Long Life Road (15 cars)
Least Common Tire Type: Medium Compound (4 cars)
Most Common Interior: Standard (11 cars)
Least Common Interior: Basic (2 cars)
Fastest 0-60 MPH: 5.3 seconds
Slowest 0-60 MPH: 12.1 seconds
Note: used Automation Test Track tab timing, not Tulsa.
Fastest Quarter Mile: 13.50 seconds
Slowest Quarter Mile: 18.42 seconds
Yeah, I was surprised, too, by the sheer number of sideways-mounted inline 6’s. But, then again, I think you get a little more bang for your buck with an I6 than an I4, and I3 doesn’t yet have the option to wear a snail. So everyone kinda gravitated toward the I6.
Interesting! After my testing I did indeed find that it’s easier to tune an i6 (turbo is where the money’s at for this challenge) for the low end you need for better economy.
Ok here’s a pitch for my entry:
Cars and driving have become a universal part of life, and we at Armada have always sought to embrace the spirit of driving for driving’s sake. But as we march inexorably toward the future, the world tells us that change will happen, for better, or for worse. A future of more technology. A future of less oil. A future where we are uncertain whether we face environmental crisis and how much, if any, we can do about it. Many countries are responding with stringent emissions and economy targets, and many companies are responding with hybrid petrol-electric technology.
We don’t believe this does anything for the environment. With increased reliance on heavy, complicated powertrains with greater collateral environmental damage from manufacturing requirements and the byproducts of spent batteries, we’ve not seen the point of adding superfluity to a problem. Just as we believe in the simplicity of the joy of driving, we believe in simplicity here too: until such a time as we can run a car off sustainable fuels, make the engine better. And the car lighter.
Having seen samples of the new generation of eco and non-petrol cars, we feel the overall inertia to the uptake of the vision of the future is partially just that, human inertia. It’s our habit that we’ve long fought against in our aggressive agenda of pursuing the most advanced of engine technologies. But most of the rest is due to the sheer unattractiveness of the options we have seen, that lead people to cling onto their habits more tightly, lest they compromise their present instead of their future.
Thus we present to you our concept for the hybrid beater car, the [color=lime]Ceres[/color], in a series of questions entitled: Who Said Eco Had To Be…?
#Who Said Eco Had To Be Small?
First things first, we decided that the model line perfect to showcase our development would be our family sedan: spacious, versatile and decidedly not associated with eco fuel consumption. We appreciate that small is good. Our compact hatch series, the Fore, has been a major player for decades. But why give the compacts the special treatment when so many have other needs?
In this case you can be sure that there’s not just room, but leg room, shoulder room, and stretch room and then some for four adult occupants, plus 736L of space in the boot. We’re not skimping on room for a better economy figure.
#Who Said Eco Had To Be Ugly?
Some companies think futuristic means mashing together as many strange angles as possible and giving your car an identity crisis. We won’t name any names coughPriuscough, but they’re all too visible and make the future look… bad.
We still agree that striking is good. But it has to at least make some kind of sense.
You may wonder where the door handles went. Invisible as they are except under closer inspection, they’re actually flush with the door panels themselves, and when you press them they pop out as the door opens so you can pull the door open the rest of the way.
#Who Said Eco Had To Be Weak?
We don’t do slow, and we don’t do stodgy. And considering the tradition of family sedans and their often hidden sporting potential, we eschewed the standard tricks of the trade: bicycle thin eco tyres, gigantic overdrive gears, anaemic powertrain with no top end. Instead, we did everything else.
First things first, this engine, the culmination of all our near seventy years of engineering work on DOHC, turbo and fuel injection, has some serious shove. We tire of the pursuit of downsizing. Sure, it’s great to be able to achieve more with less, but we thought for a change, we’d give you even more from more. So you get a 3.3L i6 with a turbo on top. As soon as you hit the pedal, the turbo spools, and then you have around 400Nm to play with for much of the rev range.
Now there’s an output you won’t see from modern eco cars slated to hit 50US MPG minimum.
#Who Said Eco Had To Be Boring?
With that much donk, we had to ensure that all of it was utilised in the most effective manner possible. That every input translated to experience. In our own way, to address the unbelievers, this has to be our most engaging drive ever, so we mated it to a seven speed sequential with LSD, and shod the wheels with proper 235 series medium road tyres. As much tricks we used otherwise would be the fully clad undertray.
The result’s pretty quick. And that’s not all. The suspension is properly tuned for virtually no understeer, with gas monotube shocks and semi-active sway bars keeping things level. The skidpan figures speak for themselves, as does the Automation Track time:
The real secret to our savings is our willingness to push our manufacturing processes to the next level. For this concept, we investigated the use of magnesium block and full aluminium unibody construction, saving nearly 200kg on the average family sedan. This isn’t just a flight of fancy, either, we in fact have already committed to converting even our hot hatch series, the Fore, to all aluminium from the next generation onwards.
#Who Said Eco Had To Be Expensive?
This is by all accounts a family sedan. A fast, sporty, roomy, comfy family sedan. But as a family sedan, it’s priced as one, and so at 40% it goes for 25900. And you’ll save at the pump at that.
We’d like to think the future can look bright. When faced with mandates, we rise to the challenge, so you can still go there faster.
And to tide everyone over while they wait for me to finalize all the reviews…
It’s time for the Best Looking Car challenge within the challenge.
Now, I’m going to do something odd here. I’m going to reveal one of the cars as who’s it is. Car 0 is mine, the Benchmark, the Storm Sprint. Vote for it if you honestly want to, but it was the car that got me thinking about this challenge. In fact, here it is:
Madrias - HBL-Madrias-Test.zip (24.8 KB)
Just in case you wanted to see a 3.2 liter V8 get 50+ MPG.
Fun Fact: 80MB worth of disk space used between the actual car pictures and my working files.
Which Car Do You Like The Most?
0 voters
Was almost going for the largest engine in the park! 3.5l twin turbo V6. Turned out that I just couldn’t make that one efficient enough in a large sedan that almost weighs 1800 kg. Yay for not being quite the slowest
On that note, lowest/highest weight would be interesting, along with lowest/highest engine efficiency rating and loudest/most silent engine.
@koolkei Inline 6 + Turbo = ridiculously early boost -> high efficiency
Even without a turbo, an I6 seems to be intriguingly efficient.
And my concern is that when I3 engines finally get their turbo, their behaviour might be a bit lackluster.
Voted! The Zavir looks really _polish_ed 
The way the cars are shown is quite heavily distorted by the perspective. Hard to judge how they really look.
