The Car Shopping Round (Round 64): Tears in Heaven

Results Pt.1

With his computer in front of him, Ricky opened up Craigslist to browse the large number of muscle cars in his general area.

LLA TP 5.5 @LinkLuke

“Looks cool, like a Corvette but with more curves, and that engine seems right. 5.5, OHV, Twin 4’s, with 250 and change out of the rear. but, it says here “5 speed 'box”. dammit, it’s been messed with. pass!”

BM Piranha @TheElt

“OK, this looks GOOD! every inch a classic. Engine is a little strange. Small block DAOHC, oddly european looking. but, a cammer motor is not gonna put me off just yet. i’ll have to see it for myself.”

BKOO Cesta S-400 @conan

“GOD THATS BRIGHT!!! well, aside from the retinal assault of that lime, it’s a looker, and all the specs check out. looks like a factory fresh HiPo coupe utility. I’ve gotta see this one in person!”

Sinistra Meteor @Madrias

“OK, so this car has a LOT going on, i just don’t like how it looks. way too busy. and those tires look worryingly small on such a big, heavy beast. shame, since the engine looked so good. sadly, i’ll pass”

Fleet Industries Wolf @abg7

“what a boring looking car. nothing too terrible, but just bland. specs are fine and all, but it doesn’t excite me at all. pass.”

Gasril Hustle @phale

“this has potential, looks aggressive in a '70s way. 5.0 with just under 250hp is pretty enticing in such a small car. i’ll have to take a look!”

Solo Harrier 400 @thecarlover

“OOH this is really rad. it looks so good and that color screams late 60’s. 400c.i. Cammer motor under the hood is a touch worrying if anything should go wrong, but i’ve gotta see this one for myself, it’s just too cool!”

Burnelle Torrente S355 @bastormonger

“OK, this one is a real looker. classic muscle through and through. And with a 355c.i. with 300 horses and change, I’m in!”

Cresge Skipjack @BobLoblaw

“I’M BLU DABADEDABADEHHHHHHHHHHH, anyway, it looks quite bland. again, nothing wrong with the car, but there is no flair. the motor is good, but i’m passing because it just looks boring.”

Valos Debandade @DoctorNarfy

“looks very 60’s, but i wanted a muscle car, not a cruise ship! and a 3 speed slush-o-matic is not helping matters. pass.”

LMA 640 @AdmJDL

“5 speed 'box? 3 valve heads? OEM tail lights? this is a 90’s restomod. hard fucking pass.”

Bogliq Brutus 427 @HighOctaneLove

“Moldovans in exile sure know how to design a muscle car. looks A grade. performance figures look a tad lacking, but i’ll just have to try it to really call judgement.”

Znopresk Z235 V6 Corsa @NormanVauxhall

“V6, 4 valve, 5 speed, and rear engined. not a muscle car and its been molested. get it out of my sight!”

Stamford RS V8 @stm316

“It’s so ugly! passing this on looks alone, not to mention that asthmatic engine.”

DMV Galleon 415 RS @SkylineFTW97

“A muscle wagon! that’s a first! again, more of a cruise ship than a muscle machine, so sadly it’s a pass”

NCC Zephyr 222 @TR8R

“Ok, looks fairly promising, but the color scheme will have to go. wait a sec, 32v? Double wishbone front and rear? it’s another restomod. pass.”

Townsend Templar Super TA @VicVictory

“another early 70’s pony car. looks very purposeful. 5.5 with 276hp is good, a 3 speed auto is not. but, i’ll leave judgement as to whether that’s a dealbraker for this yellow machine for when i drive it.”

Scarab Meteor 342SC @gridghost

“WOW! this looks amazing! specwise, its a 5.6L cammer, which may prove expensive, but boy oh boy i’ve gotta experience this”

AEA Barracuda FSX @findRED19

“not bad looking, not great looking either, but not enough for me to discount it. specs look very good, i’ll have to give this one a closer look.”

and with that, he had a short list.

Those who made it:

@TheElt
@conan
@phale
@thecarlover
@bastormonger
@HighOctaneLove
@VicVictory
@gridghost
@findRED19

Those cut:

@LinkLuke
@Madrias
@abg7
@BobLoblaw
@DoctorNarfy
@AdmJDL
@NormanVauxhall
@stm316
@SkylineFTW97
@TR8R

12 Likes

WOO! NOT LAST! :smiley:

2 Likes

not even over yet!

Oh, I know. I’m just psyched to not be in the first cuts. Rather rare for me.

2 Likes

Gee, if I’m insta-binned, it’s probably going to be due to the odd color. Crossing my fingers for that not to be the case. :sweat_smile:

that may have been due to my stupidity. i’ll fix that, sorry!

Edit: sorted!

Asthmatic? A bit rough, don’t you think? Sure, low specific output, but 5.7 to 100, and under 14 for 400m isn’t pathetic. No issue with the “ugly” tag, though. Going to go and have a cry now. :sob::sob::sob:

3 Likes

The Burnell’s owner’s elderly aunt always loved this ‘sporty little car’ of his, so for her 80th birthday, he decided to give her the keys and let her take it out for a ride, knowing she’s a careful driver and won’t even push it to 10% of what it’s capable of. As a thank you, she somehow came up with the idea that she would do him a favor taking the Torrente to Tesco’s car wash…

Auntie: “Thank you, dear, it was delightful! And look, I’ve got it cleaned for you. I gave the friendly young man there a generous tip - he seemed to have quite a bit of trouble getting rid of those bird poo stains…”
Owner: "Oh, god, no … my racing stripes - GONE! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :sob::sob::sob:!!!

I take it I used a mod you aren’t subscribed to, @JohnWaldock?

5 Likes

I take that as not fitting the traditional description of a muscle car - four on the floor, disc brakes only on the front axle, a live rear axle, a two-door body not big enough on the outside to be a land yacht, and most importantly, front-engined, rear-drive with a normally-aspirated pushrod (or direct acting OHC) V8 for propulsion, at an affordable price; anything that deviates from this norm is an anomaly that deserves to be ignored for this round. None of my previous pony or muscle cars met all of those requirements - hence my decision to build and submit the much simpler '65 Wolf. Should have gone with some much more aggressive styling though… And gone with a brighter color and/or bigger engine to match the more extroverted exterior.

Good that I didn’t enter then. My car would be instabinned for at least 6 different reasons at once :joy:

4 Likes

I guess it’s too much to ask for a reasonable opinion on the car, I’ll be taking care to watch for who’s hosting next time.

At any rate I have no regrets about what I did for this round:

If the Wolf had looked more… distinctive on the outside (while also remaining period-accurate - it’s a 60s car after all), that approach would have most likely worked.

seems there’s a degree of controversy over the specificity to which something is to be considered a ‘muscle car’. So what’s new. That being said IIRC most of the other rounds and challenges which feature this class tended to be a bit more “Automation lenient”. It’s never that good a thing to have your litmus test be “the amount of salt flowing after the cuts”.

3 Likes

I brought a wildcard, so I expected exactly this result. The fact that my engine was appreciated is good enough for me.

1 Like

As expected :wink:

1 Like

I did say it was heavily based in reality. you sent me a 24 valve V8 with a 5 speed. that is not realistic. you can be as passive aggressive as you want, but failed to heed my warnings on the round. not to mention the fixtures you used were WAY too new for the car.

1 Like

NCC made our muscle car to go around corners! :rofl:

I guess the engine was a little too advanced for yanks…

So fair enough.

The 3 valve per cylinder is an agruable point, In 1967 Cosworth made the DFV(Double Four Valve) with 4 per cylinder. Now yes that was a Formula One engine but it was produced and used into the late 70’s, at one point making just over 500bhp. As for the 5 speed being unrealistic, all I’ve got to say is have you ever heard of Overdrive? The fixtures being too new is simply a matter of opinion, though I’m much more understanding of this one than the other two. Keep in mind that I’ve only been playing Automation for a little less than two weeks, I’m looking to learn and get better. Disqualifying my car based on your interpretation of “realistic” is fine, but next time explain what you consider to be realistic or not. If a 5 speed is going to instantly disqualify my car, say so before I submit it. Not everyone is going to have the same idea of what is and isn’t realistic.

here is the issue with all the points:

there are no 3 valve V8’s from the '60s or 70’s. none. the first production multi-valve for road use came in 1972, and that was a twin cam 4 cylinder, not a SOHC for which multi-valve is ostensibly more complex.

and as for the Overdrive fifth, that is a strictly post oil crisis feature in american automobiles. before that, OD gears were and add-on to the top of the 4th. so a pre-oil crisis 5th is nonexistant on american cars.

as for your 5th being an OD gear. i looked, and it’s just a straight fifth that falls after peak power, so the OD argument falls flat twice.

sorry to say, but CSR is always based heavily on opinions and face value, ESPECIALLY in the preliminary rounds, so if the basic specs say to me it’s not gonna fit, it’s out. that’s how it will always happen, regardless of the round host.

5 Likes

Well there’s your problem. An F1 engine and a engine for mass production are two completely different things. One is meant to race at the highest level, the other one is meant to balance reliability, affordability and economy. Trying to argue that your engine is realistic because an F1 engine had multiple valves is not valid since the roundmaster specifically said, 60-70s American Muscle, not 60-70 European Prototype sports cars

4 Likes