MotorMonth 1985 Commuter Car Comparo
MotorMonth magazine regularly runs large comparisons between cars in the same class, and for this month the ‘commuter car’ has been selected. In particularly, we are looking at cars at the lower end of the market, that would suit an individual or couple. While all cars need to have at least ‘good’ fuel economy, the class is open in regards to size, sportiness, comfort, etc. Aside from an overall winning car, cars that succeed in notable niches will also be recognised.
Good luck, competitors!
- Submission format: “MMC01-username” “model name etc.” “MMC01-username” “engine name etc.”
- Trim and engine variant year: 1985
- Banned bodies: Exploitative (e.g. Barth, any body with bugged bound boxes) and all platforms that have a rear or mid-engine option without a ≥ 3 door body option (e.g. 2 door mid-engine vehicle is allowed if the platform also has a 3 door variant). This should exclude all rear and mid-engine sports car bodies–front-engine sports car bodies can be RPed as if they are based on a mass market platform (although be warned they likely won’t be that competitive due to low practicality).
- Banned parts: Limited and no mass production
- Doors ≥ 2
- Seats ≥ 2
- Interior ≥ Standard
- Entertainment ≥ Basic
- Safety ≥ Standard
- Fuel economy ≤ 9.05 L/100 km (≳26 MPG)
- Trim emissions ≤ 757
- Trim reliability > 0
- Engine loudness ≤ 40.8
- Fuel type: 91 RON
- Engine costs ≤ 25.0 PU / 45.00 ET
- Trim costs ≤ 82.50 PU / 36.00 ET
- Markup: 0%
Kee Engine is used.
Gasmea region is used for costs, however:
- There are no taxes
- Service costs are x3.5 and insurance costs are x8 (service cost listed on the engine testing screen is ignored)
- Fuel price: $0.70/L
- Distance travelled: 24140 km (~15000 mi)
- Fuel cost formula: 0.70 * 241.40 * economy in l/100 km
- MotorMonth is a Gasmean publication situated in the state of Murrayland. This means there is some bias to larger, softer riding cars with bigger torquey engines, and the need to survive in the rain and snow. This does not mean that small cars with small engines aren’t viable, or even preferable, but all things being equal a more ‘Gasmean’ car will be preferred.
- While the competition is open to all sorts, the overall winner has to be at least competent in core commuter traits, like fuel economy and ride quality–a gas-guzzler with crashy track-oriented suspension makes not a budget commuter car. At the same time it may be worth it to compromise perfection of the core traits to make a more interesting car.
- Cars are primarily scored relative to other entrants, rather than model cars or other absolute standards (comments may deviate from this).
- The magazine’s scores are subjectively reached from a combination of Automation scores and subjective car analysis rather than following a strict formula. They are (in no specific order):
- Driving (i.e. handling, performance, ride quality, etc., especially in relation to the car’s closest niche)
- Ownership (e.g. reliability and running costs)
- An overall score is assigned subjectively, based on how well the car scores compared to the demands of its closest niche.
- A ‘people’s’ score will also be included–non-journalists will be invited to provide opinions on each competitor, which may prove decisive in determining the final winner if the journalists can’t decide.
- There is no direct maximum production cost in $, but it will factor into affordability. PU/ET limits should prevent you from building anything too far out of scope.
- Quality sliders are similarly unrestricted; beware their downsides.
- No advertisement required or scored, but it still seems like a good idea to let people know your car exists.
Competition is complete! I may continue and improve the MotorMonth concept, but for now, rest.