Star in a Reasonably Priced Hypercar

Refusing to back down on performance when a “budget” supercar was wanted, Luke took the idea of the 2002 Storm Cascabel one step further. Bringing it from 700 horsepower street-terror to 1000 horsepower super-car took very little effort. Making it fast and drivable took a lot more.

So, what makes the 2016 Storm Cascabel special? Storm Raceworks Division. Specifically, their tune for the 7.6 liter V12 under the hood, and their choices for body panels and suspension tuning.

This is the Cascabel’s engine, built and tuned by Storm Raceworks Division, a 7.6 liter V12, magnesium block and AlSi heads, twin turbocharged, and bypass valves.

Built to have a fast spool-up and lean burn, it throws down 1096 horsepower. There’s plenty of room left in the event you wanted even more power, though we must admit it’s not advised to do so.

SRD took the aluminum panels off of the Cascabel and threw them into our laser scanner, then created new panels out of carbon fiber. Rear suspension was converted from multi-link to pushrod in order to shed a little more weight. To improve comfort, custom cloth seats were installed, and against SRD’s intended demands, Luke insisted a basic infotainment system be installed in the Cascabel.

Luke designed the exterior of the Cascabel as a throwback to the original, while also picking up some styling elements from the rattlesnake he’d removed from the factory in Nevada. Again, sidepipes were chosen to make the car look more aggressive, and the three window-slots were added to improve rear blind-spot visibility, and the active aerodynamics control the two flaps on either side of the trunk.

But how fast is it? That’s the important thing to our customers.

And the price?

A touch below $100k. We feel this is a bargain for buying a front-engined, all-wheel-drive monster.

5 Likes

Ehh… One could think that me, being the creator of Niddhogg - not bad supercar, I think - would know how to make a car go fast around the Green Hell for 100k$.

#But I have no idea.

Really :disappointed: Teach me someone, pretty please?

It’s really really hard, but… Mid engine will be faster than front engine, if you can tune it well. Front engine responds well to brute-force methods. Carbon anything is freaking expensive, so avoid it when possible, but accept using it if it becomes the only option. Displacement is a friend, but turbos are still nice to have. Don’t go too crazy with the quality sliders, though you’ll need some to get the necessary track time. Stick with either Standard or Progressive springs, they’re light and the other options don’t seem to add weight.

About the best I can tell you. Everything else is just trying different combinations of parts.

3 Likes

Go with as much aluminium as possible. Then make an engine that spools so slowly that it basically is entirely turbo lag up until peak power (no power surges, remember) - this is for good drivability and comfort

1 Like

Or you can go with one with the minimum boost possible that spools as early as possibly but with a sufficiently large compressor so you still get a good Top end. Slow spooling turbos would be laggier, though this isn’t only slightly reflected in the throttle response figure.

1 Like


[smartass]Exotic NA V12 MR 1 Seater[/smartass]
This is a small improvement of my first successful attempt.


[smartass]This is a proof of concept car.[/smartass]
I wanted to make a small car with a smaller engine to see if it could compete. This car uses one of the vanilla mid/rear engine bodies in an M-AWD transverse setup with a 3.6L Turbo V12. It has a glued aluminum chassis with carbon fiber body panels. It tops out at 675 HP and gets 15.2 MPG US. It sells for $99592 at 111% markup. It does not have that good a driveability or even comfort, but it is quick on the track and easy on the budget.





[smartass]Front engine AWD Van with 4 seats.[/smartass]
I have used this body in several other competitions in which it has been victorious even against hypercars. It, yet again, proves to be a very capable platform.




[smartass]Front engine AWD sports coupe.[/smartass]
This body is a pain to use because engines never seem to stay under the body panels, thought, It is quite good. Naturally aspirated 11L V12 making 1300HP and running a 6:49.84 makes this the fastest car I’ve made for this event so far, and perhaps the quickest in the competition yet, but low drivability and comfort mixed with higher costs mean lower sales and lower profits.


[smartass]Front Engine RWD coupe.[/smartass]
This car barely met the time requirement at 7:02.99. I reused the engine from the small concept car for its weight advantage. I wasn’t sure if I was going to be able to pull off a FR car for this challenge. I might try to tackle FF next.


[smartass]Front Engine AWD 4 Door 5 Seats[/smartass]
This was an attempt at a somewhat upscale car. It has premium interior but only basic infotainment, it also has power steering, ABS, traction control, and electronic stability.

4 Likes

This is my first successful attempt at this challenge and I’m having a blast!

Although I do believe I’m missing something…

2016 Bogliq Shelob



Basically, the car fails in a couple of areas. It’s a bit spooky to drive in the wet (below 50 driveability) and it’s not as comfortable as it could be (below 35 comfort). It also, for 2016, drinks like a fish so I have to find a way to save fuel while improving handling and comfort!

I tried a N/A model but it juuust wasn’t fast enough :unamused:

Oh, it also costs 84K with a 100% mark-up so it’s a bargain for what it achieves! :grin:

3 Likes

that is a loooooot of power haha. I suspect your car’s got more fuel consumption largely due to the fact it’s quite large, after all, I’m running 9.6L/100km and 1470kg with a specific output of a bit over 200hp/L myself.

4 Likes

I don’t know what mine comes out to in L/100km, but I think 22.8 MPG isn’t exactly awful to the tune of 1000 horsepower.

It’s not bad at all for a hypercar weighing 1800+Kg but I was shooting for 12L/100 max so it doesn’t pass my fuel requirements, lol!

Yup, heavy and lots of power does not an eco car make! I’m going to keep on trying but I’m just chuffed that I was able to get this close! :sunglasses:

1 Like

Ummm… This will be the definitive tune for the 2016 Bogliq Shelob… :scream:



I was testing an AWD version of the Shelob in the hopes that the grip would make use of all the power available… Unfortunately I didn’t start a new engine variant so my RWD Shelob got some free upgrades too…

New RRP of $94,000 and just squeaks by on PU’s but it’s now even spookier in the wet, the interior is having a hard time keeping the driver in place and the fuel economy still misses internal targets!

Imagine if I’d entered this car in CSR 23… I might have won! :laughing:

5 Likes

@strop see? Everyone is making it sub-7 minute with budget to spare…
My car is at 7:15 but I think I simply used the wrong body as a platform for this challenge.

Gotta have some room to move. It’s good for having a bit of variety and proving @Deskyx wrong :stuck_out_tongue:

5 Likes

Has there been a change in the game? My stats have mysteriously changed grrrr

Relevant to thread. Lol.

5 Likes

100 $ per horsepower :smiley:

that is a good horsepower to price ration

2 Likes

Somehow I have difficulty imagining selling my 2000bhp model for 200K :joy:

2 Likes

You’re not alone. I started off using the large 2002 MR body, and now i’m stuck at low 7:04 with lousy reliability (54 ish) and about 1000 hp to 1575 kgs… I just can’t get below 7:03 :unamused:

And yet i have good cornering (1.31 front and 1.41 back) and a top speed of 360 and good acceleration (2.3/1.1.) and 48/79 DR/SP.

If i look to the other cars it should break the 7 minute mark (and it does with slicks) but i can’t get it below w/o

1 Like

I built quite a few cars that looked like they had better performance numbers than the one I posted above but kept falling short. I just kept trying different bodies and engines until I found a combo that worked well. You’ll get it soon too.

1 Like

For the lolz, I can’t tune track suspension for crap, but I can tune for cheap power, so here’s my take on the cheap hyper car, 6:52 ring time, 15.6 mpg, F-AWD 1 seater, and a 10 liter twin turbo pushrod V8 with 1535 horsepower. and it can sell pretty well with a %111

5 Likes