Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

The Efficient Future - Make the Best of it Competition


#101

Cant wait for the next reviews :slight_smile:

Btw since this is a competition about efficency, could you please always mention the power and economy figures or a small stat table?

I really would like to know what others have achieved.


#102

[quote=“asdren”]Cant wait for the next reviews :slight_smile:

Btw since this is a competition about efficency, could you please always mention the power and economy figures or a small stat table?

I really would like to know what others have achieved.[/quote]

There will be a full detailed chart after all reviews are posted :smiley:


#103

Sorry for the delay in the reviews…

I will be doing 14th through 10th in the next few days. Then I will be out of town, and likely not to do another for about a week. When I return, we will look at the top 10 cars!

Thanks for your patience!


#104

No worries. The level of detail you go into is fantastic, really makes them worthwhile.


#105

Oh dang, I was really expecting to be listed by now. Guess a huge economy V12 wasn’t that bad of an idea. :smiley:


#106

now now, don’t jinx yourself slax :stuck_out_tongue:


#107

14th of 20
User: DeusExMackia
Company: Erin
Car: Erwin Nardella Mk2

img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/Carskick/14%20-%20DeusExMackia.png

Today began with a strong cup of black coffee after a small hiatus from reviewing. But today was the day. The day I’d be testing out the Erin Nardella Mk2.

I began by glancing over the spec sheet. An undersquare 2 liter turbo was the engine of choice for this very classic, possibly British, looking 2 seater. It claimed 0-62mph in 6.4 seconds, maxing out at 145mph. Not bad for a 45MPG coupe with a price tag of under $27k. My curiosity was sparked and I headed out for a test drive.

As I walked up to the vehicle, I was taken aback first by the color. I was sure it was black from far away, but it turned out to be very dark green; A very subdued, classy green, suiting the styling quite well; Like wearing a dark green suit to a black tie event. I was ready to hop in. Unfortunately, the classy feel did not continue inside. The interior was intentionally made to remind you this was a car under $30k. While the seats and finishes were just average, the stereo and infotainment system were sub-par. GPS was left off, the Bluetooth was flaky, and no USB port. Really? And while we’re on things you don’t get, add Traction, Stability, and Launch assists to that list. On the flip side, there are airbags everywhere and the seat belts were phenomenal!

So I was ready for a drive. I turned the key (No push button start), and the peppy engine fired right up with delight; like a labradoodle when you first walk through the door. The exhaust note was classy and throaty, matching the car’s exterior theme quite well, despite it being a turbo 4. I put the manual in first, and took off. My first thought when grabbing the shifter was how well put together it felt, short throws and tight clutch. But this shortly became a sore point. Well, the gears are so close together. Why? And the overdrive keeps the RPMs at speed way too high, also limiting top speed via gear ratios. Again, why? 3rd barely gets you to 60MPH. This does make it quite easy to burn rubber and makes this a good auto crossing car. The little turbo is fully spooled by 2300RPMs, though only provides 8.7psi of boost. While the torque curve is fairly broad and useful, there’s not a whole lot of raw output. I am guessing they were trying to compensate with the transmission?

After driving through town a bit, I got out on to the open road with some twisties. The car instantly came into it’s own. This is a great drift car! The fully adjustable active sport suspension, the low ride height, the skinny tires, the perfect amount of power and weight, the front engine/RWD layout. All of it screamed drift car. But of course, with good eco stats to please the Green Goddess. The brakes were good, but not great. They seemed to overpower the tires, then show a hint of fade, but they did the job while being fairly front/rear balanced.

So the Erin Nardella Mk2 was a mixed bag of tricks. On one side, you get a very high tech suspension, but then you get low tech brakes and skinny sticky tires. You get great gas mileage and a usable power curve, but then strange gearing for daily use. In a nutshell, it seems someone tried to hide a track car inside of an eco-friendly businessman’s coupe. It’s intoxicating like straight, black coffee. It’s bitter yet low calorie, and I want to drink it every day!

The Efficient Future Rank: 14th/20 @ 1389.1 points
Summary: Great Fuel Economy, Very Low Price, Eco-Friendlyness, and Good Track Times moved it up the ranks! But the car was held back by relatively low drivability, comfort, and prestige. While sporty, it wasn’t sporty enough to get a significant point boost here.

Carskick’s Overall Subjective Score: 7.5/10
Summary: I’m a sucker for small roadsters for fun. I also love that you can have a great time in this car while being eco friendly. But the quirky infotainment system, mediocre interior, wonky gears, and low practicality limit this to more of a weekend car than a daily driver. For those who want a true traditional driving experience with modern efficiency and low cost, this is your car!


#108

Excellent review @carskick! Thanks!


#109

Think the wait is going to kill me at this rate, I want to know how rubbish mine was :smiley:


#110

I am so sorry for the delay, guys. I am going to get back on track, here. I have the next review coming up tonight!

As a disclaimer, after my Open Beta updated, I get an error message when trying to run the previous build. Strange.

At any rate, I already calculated the scores, so most, if not all the numbers will be based on the previous build, so the ranks have not changed. However, any stats I pull that I did not previously save may be different.

Enjoy!


#111

13th of 20
User: VicVictory
Company: Ardent Motors Corporation
Car: Kestrel LS-T

img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/Carskick/13%20-%20VicVictory.png

Another day, another car. This is the day I became intimately familiar with the Ardent’s Kestrel LS-T. So what’s this one all about? Well, I grabbed the keys and walked up to the dark green 5-door tester to find out.

First off, the styling is very conservative. I don’t think anyone would find it offensive and few would call it stylish. However, once you enter the cabin, you’ll see the designers spent much of their time here; it’s gorgeous! The premium seats and very high quality infotainment system are class leading! The beauty is in the details; such as the green stitching and accents that match the exterior. Techies will also appreciate all the electronic gadgets and features this car has. The stereo is mind blowing and the HUD is a nice touch. This is definitely for those who like to be surrounded by creature comforts. This is good news, as it will NOT capture the performance market.

While this is not the slowest and least sporty car out of the 20, it is 2nd worst. This means 0 to 100KPH takes over 12 seconds, and the quarter mile barely breaks 19 seconds. The suspension is mostly comfort tuned, so track times are not great, either. Not to say handling is bad, don’t get me wrong. It’s actually well balanced and predictable. When I first drove of the lot, I was surprised how well the non-active suspension absorbed road imperfections, even bad ones. I immediately decided to throw it into a turn at high speed, which took a few tries before I realized how truly under powered this car was. It stayed quite level, though understeer did become prevalent with speed, as expected with a comfortable and relatively heavy Front Driver. The 195mm eco tires don’t help with the handling, but they do keep comfort in check.

So I cruised around for quite a while, enjoying the pollen and humidity where I live, and I started thinking about this engine. So we have a 1.2 Liter Turbo 4 Cylinder pulling around 3300lbs. What’s wrong here? As best as I can figure, the engine is just…too…well…small… The Fuel Economy is good, but not great. Could this car have benefited from a larger 1.4-1.8 liter turbo, gotten far more torque and power while achieving similar, if not better fuel economy? I think so. The engine feels like it has to try so hard and the 7 speed auto has to downshift so often. It just don’t think it’s maximizing its economy in this way. In a lighter car, this engine would make a lot of sense. But more displacement would be beneficial.

That being said, this is a great eco-family car. It is fuel efficient. It is very practical and comfortable. It has low enough emissions to qualify for tax kickbacks. But at a $35,000, I think there might be better options out there for most people.

The Efficient Future Rank: 13/20 @ 1430.2 points
Summary: Comfort, practicality, reliability, economy, and relatively low initial and running costs placed this car in the 13th spot. But it’s very underpowered engine and heavy weight hurt it’s economy and sport figures quite a bit.

Carskick’s Overall Subjective Score: 6.0 /10
Summary: Very conservative looks and lackluster performance are mood killers for me. I appreciate the quality interior and comfortable ride, but it’s not enough to make up for the boredom! The fuel economy and emissions were good, but nothing mind blowing. Comfort and practicality is the selling point here.


#112

About the error message, deleting the files in the “brands” and “engineering” folders might allow the previous build to run. It’s fixed it for me once, so it could be worth a try if you still want to opt out of the beta for the stats :slight_smile:


#113

Gave it a try, no luck. Still gives an error message. It’s ok, though. The reviews will continue!


#114

12th of 20
User: HighOctaneLove
Company: Bogliq Automotive
Car: Slyde

img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/Carskick/12%20-%20HighOctaneLove.png

Today I finished my test drive on the cheapest car in the roundup! Er… I mean least expensive!

Walking up to the budget machine, I was relatively impressed with its looks. Simple yet elegant. The little budget sedan had a bit of sporty flair with it’s prominent black front lip and matching spoiler, which very well could be the same part number to save money in manufacturing. I was intrigued. Then I opened the door…

I think I just rented a 99’ Dodge Neon. This interior is awful! Cheap plastics, chintzy seat belts, and an assortment of unimpressive ‘features’ litter the cabin. Auto A/C? No. Decent Stereo? No. Bluetooth? Yes, but the interface is garbage. Only 2 air bags. Is that still legal? So I directed my attention towards the driver area. Not too bad. Instrumentation is ok, but it does have dedicated Traction and Stability Control. Will this eco car even need these?

As it turns out, yes. I started the engine and was impressed the baffled, throaty sound of a 2.5 liter turbo 4 cylinder engine. I put the manual 6 speed in gear and took off. And I couldn’t help but get this massive, cheesy grin on my face. Why?

First, I hadn’t realized the car was Rear Wheel Drive. Interesting choice for a cheap eco car. Then I felt the turbo spool at 3100RPM. A little late, but the torque is phenomenal! So I pulled up to street light and decided to go all out with TCS off. Well, lets just say I didn’t ease in as much as I should have, because the turbo caused the tires to just peel out as the tach redlined in first gear and I was hardly moving! No one was behind me, so I decided to launch again, a little more carefully. I was rewarded…With a careful launch and short shifting into second, I was able to better utilize the massive amount of power and the wide powerband this engine gave me. I loved every second of it!

The next day I took it out on the track. The conclusion is this is actually a budget sports car, not an eco car. It flies around the track, and the thin sticky tires give you nice controlled drifts in the corners. The closely geared are perfect for the track as well. But it isn’t the most driver friendly car. It’s kind of a monster, but it fits what it truly is. You even get small Carbon Ceramic brakes! Now that’s a surprise.

But here’s the thing… We’re looking for a mid ranged to above average ranged efficient car to herald in the future of the green party. Yes, it gets decent gas mileage, and emissions are low. But is this really it? Are people okay with the lack of safety features? Are they okay with an interior that could be bested by the 2020 Kia Rio? I’m just not sold in that regard. Is it fun? Yes. And the basic interior and safety keep the car light, which improves performance, handling, and economy immensely. But at what cost? Probably a lot of actual sales, unfortunately. Even at only $22,300, the cheapest car we tested, I still see it as more a of a niche car in our market.

The Efficient Future Rank: 12/20 @ 1460.4 points
Summary: Great performance, handling, braking, low costs to own and operate, and good economy/emissions stats put this car where it is on the chart. But it’s low drivability, safety, comfort, etc. keep it out of the top 10. If they make a $30 to 50k trim without loosing too much of the performance side, they may have a winner on their hands!

Carskick’s Overall Subjective Score: 6.5/10
Summary: I loved the way it drives. It’s fast and it’s fun. But almost everything else about it is below average or bad. It’s other saving grace is that it’s dirt cheap. I think 80% of the cost of the car goes into the engine and brakes.


#115

nice review carskick :slight_smile:

just 1 thing. well, 2.

i think the words you want to use are
‘Litters’ (means in the range of ‘shit’ everywhere) instead of ‘liter’ (a measurement of liquid)
and
‘Decent’ (means adequate/enough/okay-ish) instead of descent (means, going down, like ‘descending a mountain’)


#116

[quote=“koolkei”]nice review carskick :slight_smile:

just 1 thing. well, 2.

i think the words you want to use are
‘Litters’ (means in the range of ‘shit’ everywhere) instead of ‘liter’ (a measurement of liquid)
and
‘Decent’ (means adequate/enough/okay-ish) instead of descent (means, going down, like ‘descending a mountain’)[/quote]

Thank you for the corrections, both have been fixed.

Much appreciated!


#117

The further down the list we go the more anxious I get :laughing:


#118

I’m just surprised I haven’t seen my car yet. Did I get bonus points for the paintjob or something?


#119

[quote=“carskick”]

Gave it a try, no luck. Still gives an error message. It’s ok, though. The reviews will continue![/quote]

You also have to delete the LUA files for any/all cars you have created in the new open beta version before you can go back to the old version, because their mere presence generates the brands and engineering folders that cause problems.

As for the Ardent’s performance… Yeah, I was totally going for a premium hatch. (As for aestheteics… I’m limited to vanilla content only, and can never get crap to align properly when I try to do complex fixtures like everyone else. Sorry. Trust me, what I made looks better than if I spent 3 hours screwing with fixtures to make it “pretty”.)


#120

This thing still alive?