When I open your car a grille or vent you have used is either not loading or not one I have subbed to - the cooling is only 10kJ. @Microwave Can you tell me which ones I need?
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695125601
Here @ramthecowy.
EDIT: Iâd like to clarify something: My car is not meant to be a muscle car. Had a miniature brainfart whilst writing my first post. Itâs a premium/semi-sporty family sedan.
Well, @Microwave, seeing as I have a soft spot for 60s family cars (especially my very own Erin Merna), I decided to review you car! 
So here we go:
###User Review: 1967 Braconash 318 (Manual)
Being from Britain, Iâm only used to European-sized vehicles, meaning that the idea of this 5.4m long behemoth being a âfamilyâ car was strange to me. But, then again, it is - as far as I can tell - America, so Iâll just have to assume thatâs what theyâre used to over there.
The Braconash is, in short, a lovely car, designed and built with far more care than Iâm used to on American vehicles. Itâs got an effortless sense of friendliness to it. It welcomes you into its vast cabin, which by the way is as luxurious as youâd expect it. Pale leather seats, wooden dashboard and beautifully detailed instruments. I like.
Starting the Braconash brings to life the 5.2l single-cam V8, which produces 222 hp. It certainly doesnât rev high, but the slow response of the engine only continues that theme of friendliness. The low and thwarty rumble of its engine is reassuring, and actually using it is nice too; a good torque curve makes this car a joy to cruise in.
Driving this thing is unusual for me. Iâm not used to massive cars like this and it did take some getting used to, but that didnât prevent me from seeing some of the strengths of this cars design. For one, the suspension is superb. Itâs tuned pretty much perfectly; no reverb whatsoever from going over bumps in the road and it never bounces. For a 1.6 ton car, thatâs pretty impressive. Itâs handling characteristics certainly arenât anything to write home about - in fact theyâre appalling for any performance driving - but theyâre easy on the hand, plus the power steering made it nice to use around town and not too hard to park. Acceleration was also great, particular for a car from this time, plus the brakes arenât half bad either.
Now onto some downsides. For one, thereâs no getting round that it is massive. You couldnât use this thing on British roads at all, and its sheer size does create some maneuverability issues, made worse by the collosal C pillars at the back of the car. Thereâs no getting round that theyâre a major hindrance in terms of visibility. Economy too wasnât up to my European standards, with an average of 16.8 mpg.
Then again though, those are fairly minor issues. Sure, the visibility issues are annoying when youâre trying to park in a parking lot, but then again, how often would you be visiting such a place in this car? And does paying more for fuel matter to you if you can actually afford one of these? Whatsmore, there are suggestions that the reliability of this car is excellent, and with decent service costs, it could actually end up being a fairly low-cost vehicle to run in the long term.
For me, the Braconashâs real strengths are found in how friendly a car it is. From the smooth and characterful looks (that exuberate majesty and class) to the plush interior and pleasant feel of how it drives, this car is a real gentle giant of the road. Itâs certainly not for me as itâs totally unsuited to European roads, but Iâd be honored to own one were I an American.
Score: 8/10
For: Friendly styling, superb build quality, gentle driving characteristics
Against: Questionable fuel economy, sheer size, some visibility issues
6 Likes
Thanks for taking the time to write this review! Very fair and well writen.
As a European myself, it can be more difficult to make these kinds of cars due to the fact that itâs easy to go âNEEDS MORE 8L V8 AND HUGE FINSâ, so this time around I did my best to make a very toned down car. I think I succeeded!
4 Likes
Yeah! Itâs certainly a lot less shouty than other American cars. Hence why I liked it 
You hit the nail on the head with your review; the Braconash is clearly too big for most of Europe but is clearly much less out of place where the roads are wider (such as Australia and America). And while itâs not very sporting at all, on the other hand it is an excellent luxury land yacht. In short, itâs a relaxed cruiser more at home on the Pacific Motorway than the Great Alpine Road.
taking a shot at this
they say itâs purely an econo city car. efficient and cheap. but looking at itâs bigger brothers, it seems that is has more potential than just cheap and efficient. now iâm focusing on the BE trim, and not the others, but will mention a bit of the other trims
coming on to the front⌠itâs⌠squinty⌠most of the ornaments are small and inline. they do look good if you quarantine them away from the car. itâs just theyâre too small. then thereâs the, uh⌠is it a triple fog lamp or DRL set? it looks good from the front, but thereâs a lot of lights, although theyâre small ones, but thatâs a lot of lamps to go out, and needs replacement.
thereâs nothing to write home about on the side. because thereâs⌠nothing, except for the door handle. not even side indicators? that has to be illegal on some country. so i think i have the version that is not for most of the 1st world nations.
on the rear end. it looks⌠eh, not boring, not ugly, itâs okay, acceptable. except for the trims on the bumper, and the too-big-exhaust-tips that are over the top.
now letâs start reading the spec sheets and look at the undercarriage. itâs⌠a full alumunium car. alu monocoque and alu panels⌠so what was that about cheap? well the car size IS really small, so maybe that wonât affect the price as much as i think. and then, full double suspension all around. this isnât a cheap and efficient city car, no, the base is way too complex for it. is may be good on the road. but itâs going to be a nightmare to maintain for average joe that knows nothing about a car except for the throttle and the brake. which is most of the car buyer on this market is.
but then again, the bigger brothers are way more performance and sport oriented. so this is an example of a higher priced and more complex car dumbed down, instead of the more common, cheaper normal car, tuned up for performance that we see today. rear longitudinal mounted engine. not the transverse mounted engine that are more common on rear engined car. yet another proof that itâs a performance car, not an econobox.
the engine is an undersquared 1L inline 4 with DOHC 4 valves featuring both VVL and VVT. seems normal for a small car such as this right? not quite. it revs to 9kRPM, it has full forged bottom end components, makes 100HP, but itâs at 8300RPM, it has individual throttle per cylinder, tubular exhaust headers, straight through + reverse flow mufflers. but except for the fancy bottom end parts, everything else is just standard quality components. but this engine just SCREAMS performance, not an eco engine. and with performance engines that revs high, you know what that means? itâs a bitch for novice drivers, which there are a lot of them in this market theyâre aiming for. big power? sure, but itâs all on the later 1/3rd of the rev range. and barely any torque down low, so the engine need to be revved a bit higher, which may seem trivial, but to some beginners, revving the engine high is a little bit scarier. with an engine so small, they shouldâve focused on the lower end torque rather than the overall power band. because only car enthusiast can use the whole power band effectively. overall, nicely tuned engine, but the tune focus was wrong.
so finally going inside, thereâs just a normal standard interior you would expect of a usual hatchback. but with rather more basic entertainment system. it has a 6 speed single clutch sequential gearbox, with the 6th gear being an overdrive, the gear change is as smooth as a womenâs skin, thereâs barely any jolt on normal driving conditions, quick and responsive on spirited driving. but the tires. 185 on the rear is fine, but 155 on the front really brings worries. itâs too thin for proper traction. i know that itâs an attempt to alleviate the inherent oversteer-y nature of a rear mounted engine car, but i think they couldâve done it another way around, like with suspension tuning. speaking of which, it has progressive springs, and semi-active swaybars. other than that. thereâs nothing more to write about.
now the brakes⌠WAYYYYYYYY over powered, 300mm solid disc on the front, and 215 vented on the rear. both single piston. sure it does the job good. TOO good. as soon as the ABS system shits itself, the brake system just wonât be controllable. last up, it has semi clad undertray. which, at this point itâs pretty useless, it does little compared to the added weight and cost. and itâs not just a normal one either, itâs got way more attention than it needs.
in the end, itâs a very drivable car, yet still fun, with a lot of BUT.
itâs driveable BUT only when everything is working properly. like the ABS system not letting you lock your brakes.
itâs fun, BUT only for those who knows how to pull out the max potential from the car.
itâs economical, but itâs only economical because of itâs weight and aerodynamics. had the engine supported it. it has way more potential
summaried into 1 sentence
###the car is good at what does do, just have the wrong focus in mine when it was designed for.
now my car.
a complete ecobox with either a more basic family oriented sedan. or, slightly up classed hatchback.
Cool-K - Ziotry.zip (105.6 KB)
Thaks for reviewing my car, Iâll probably have a look at some of the problems you mentioned and try to adjust them.
As for low end torque Iâm not sure how much more I could give it, it already uses a fairly low cam setting plus I really lie how smooth the torque curve is with how its set up currently but that engine was designed fairly quickly as I had to redo it it for the car since the original engine became too big with one of the updates and I think the old engine did make a bit more low end as it still made 100hp but the torque curve was falt rather than the smooth rising curve of this engine.
My philosophy for designing this car was to make something I would really like to drive and own so it may be slightly compromised due to that.
Also I may review your car when I get time as I need to work on my reviewing skills for when I win a CSR round. And Iâm generally interested in looking at other peoples design philosophies.
Yikes, Iâve lost track of this thread. Been a busy week. I promised to upload something ages ago, so here it finally is. Stable build. It does have a vmo lip in it. I can guarantee you itâs not buggy.
@titleguy1 reviewed the original prototype of Gryphon Gearâs 2017 Ouroboros in an article published in Upshift. Like all other models GG produces, it carries a single model name with no trim designation. But it is designed to be the start of a new era: the era of the eco-hypercar. This is especially significant for a company whose short track record of mad-mobiles was made with gas-guzzlers that fairly needed an oil refinery to run and relied on sheer brute force. This, coming from a head of design who could be quoted earlier that decade as saying they didnât want to be smart, they wanted to be fast.
Fast forward some years, and the tuneâs changed. Being fast means being smarter. 2016âs Salamander, 800bhp and 11L/100km was already a world apart from the usual 2000bhp and 25L/100km. But it was just a test. This here is a car that is even lighter, compact, and civilised. Itâs strange to be saying less is more, especially when talking about hypercars, but here is a world-beating hypercar good for a sub 7-minute Green Hell lap on sports tyres, with just 656bhp. And it gets 5.73L/100km, or 41mpg, with a 0-100km/h of 2.9s, a 10s flat quarter mile, onto a top speed of 373km/h. And for its price, it has its sights aimed squarely at the 911 GT2 RS by producing a car with 918 levels of performance. Why would one bother to make a hypercar economical? Itâs an engineering concern when thinking about the auto industry of the future, now that it is moving sharply towards a post-petroleum market.
Unlike what submission to a GT shootout might have suggested, this isnât a car to get comfortable in. Itâs designed to be streetable, and even somewhat liveable. But as with all things GG, itâs an exploration of how one achieves fast, and in this case, fast for less.
Design is mostly there, there may be a few small details Iâm not sold on but weâre getting close to changing builds anyway so thereâs no point lol.
McHorseguy - Ouroboros.zip (109.4 KB)
1 Like
Gryphon Gear is at it again. As if they havenât made enough hypercars already, they made one that will get 40 MPG +. Thatâs better than even the thriftiest econoboxes on the roads today, and those donât have 600+ horsepower and wonât do 230 mph. The Ouroboros puts itself in a unique position in the incredibly competitive hypercar segment in that it while it there quite a few faster, there wonât be one that can achieve similar levels of economy. While economy is quite frankly irrelevant when cross shopping hypercars, on this car it becomes a game changer, a representation of how far ahead Gryphon Gear is at producing efficient powerplants.
In typical Gryphon Gear fashion, the exterior is a polarizing look, a unique blend of curves and vents that results in an ultimately bizzare yet incredibly cool looking machine. There is simply nothing short of KHT Eau Rouge that has nearly the amount of visual impact this car has.
The interior and ride is surprisingly snug too. Gryphon Gearâs strange and uber flashy interior with more buttons and switches than a nuclear submarine is actually not that bad of a place to be in. The very compliant suspension and silky smooth powerplant makes city driving no more of a hassle or any thirstier than a regular commuter, not counting the visibility and very low driving position.
On the tracks, the car accelerates like a superbike. Thereâs not a massive amount of kick up rear but thereâs very little weight to push and drag to fight and it shows. 10 second quarters with a 230 plus mph top speed, the car glides to top speed with very little resistance, whether from air or weight. On the corners, it drives like any normal high performance road car. Not that itâs a bad thing by any means, it can still carry enormous amounts of corner speed however, it really just isnât as sharp as a proper track car. Tires are clearly lacking, being ultra high performance road tires, while great for back road carving, starts to show itâs limits very quickly when pushed. The oversteery suspension set up certainly helps in making things more interesting though and the various electronics restrain the car from eating itâs own tail. Brakes being standard performance steel vented discs begin losing feel and feel mushy after a long drive on the track. While it can put down impressive lap times, the car really doesnât feel at home at the track.
Back road runs in the car however, are fantastic. The much lower speeds meant the tires are completely adequate and as an added bonus, theyâre still usable in the rain. The light weight meant you could chuck the car around with ease, and the steering is very communicative with minimal assist. The dual clutch gearbox is smooth, shifts are fast and easy, and the gears are properly spaced to bring out the most of the powerband when needed, and get 41 mpg when it isnât.
With amazing efficiency at the level of performance, the Ouroborous brings a different game to the hypercar market that none of itâs competitors could match. And honestly it drives better than any other Gryphon Gear offering too. Itâs a good break to see a true road oriented hypercar than a track monster chasing for numbers.
Likes:
-Amazing Efficiency
-Best driving GG machine
-Show stopping looks
-Great usability and easy to drive in all occasions
-Comfortable ride
Dislikes:
-Low downforce means it never feels like a race car.
-Sports tires have a very clear grip limit
-Efficiency kinda dies in more spirited driving (Based on economy graph, it seems to be significantly thirstier when at peak power)
-Track experience is somewhat lacking
@strop Essentially what I got from this car is that itâs a wonderful road car, but it falls short on track driving, not numbers wise obviously. Also how do you plan to profit off a 60% mark up?
1 Like
Iâve got no idea currently what markup to use, so likely that number is a) low and needs to be closer to 100% b) aided by the fact this has a lot less PU and so the new production line opening for this tier of car is able to produce hundreds of units a year, not just two dozen. Furthermore, the components of this tier of car are surprisingly modular. New âmodelsâ donât exactly reinvent the wheel except in body design, because the design teamâs primary concern is how to exploit aerodynamics and create polarising looks.
In terms of compromises for the road and track, certainly there will be limitations compared to a million dollar plus hypercar. It will depend on oneâs expectations. Probably the biggest inferred limitation is that this car doesnât have the capacity to change its nature through on-board controls (unlike the 2017 Mercury you saw, which represents the pointiest end of GGâs tech explorations). This car does use a âone size fits mostâ approach because itâs supposed to be more convenient. Interestingly enough another reviewer raised similar comments about the brakes and handling (I donât recall tuning the car to oversteer tho) with its predecessor, Salamander. But carbon parts are very bitey and more importantly, expensive.
Well to be honest when looking at cars I look at the production costs and PU numbers when determining realistic pricing and competitors. At itâs current state, I think the car should realistically be sold at about $250,000 +, which at that price point, it will have to fight big boys like the Eau Rouge SL, and GGâs very own Mercury. Certainly it is cheaper than the two, but past $100K price difference is pretty much moot, since people who can buy $200K cars can usually buy $600K cars. I personally recommend glued aluminum monocoques so that the car can successfully sell at itâs current price point, and prevents cannibalizing your own sales.
Thatâs where the current Automation pricing breaks down completely⌠a car like the 2017 Mercury would never actually sell for 250k 
Ever. In terms of real world price point itâs more like on the level of things like the FxxK, P1 GTR, even a Trevita, Agera One:1, Lykan Hypersport or Centenario.
Yes, Ouroboros is all carbon. Thatâs because GGâs sole manufacturing and fabrication pipeline for the body is CF. Thatâs what they started with⌠so itâd actually be very expensive for them to attempt to start fabricating in other materials because theyâd have to retool. I do think that the way I treat the numbers hasnât really conveyed just how worlds apart the cars are despite the fact they could get similar times on certain tracks, and thatâs partly my fault because I take some liberties. The rest, however, are rectified by features that will be discovered in campaign mode. Not that I could create a company like GG in campaign mode, anyway!
True, but the Ouroborous couldnât sell for $160K either. Actually I think it would best sell at about $500K. At which point if you could buy an Ouroborous, you probably could buy a Mercury.
It also happens to be in the same price bracket of the Entropy⌠which while getting 1/3 the mileage and is a miserable road car, could give a Mercury a very hard time on the track⌠
I suspect youâre right 
I must work out the segregation of the market. Or even the marketing pitch. The cf is objectively expensive, but I donât have anything else, so is it worth subcontracting the chassis building out⌠Urgh!
Here is the second car I have chosen to submit for others to review, the 2000 NMC RPM-8. It was the answer to a question asked by NMCâs engineers and customers alike: âWhat if the NMC RPM-4 had twice as many cylinders under its rear deck?â This car uses a rear wing by @Corvette6317, taillights and side vents (two different mods for the latter) from @Razyx, and headlights by Jack Cossack; all these mods are available via the Steam Workshop.
The frontal aspect is clearly inspired by the C6 Corvette, although the boot would have been on the other foot in real life given that the RPM-8 came out in 2000, four years before the C6 was introduced.
From the side the RPM-8 is quite well-proportioned, with relatively uncluttered flanks, and the upper and lower air intakes complement the carâs styling quite well.
This is the view other road users get to see when the RPM-8 blasts past. The rear wing is not an active aero component but is manually adjustable, as is the front splitter.
As a lightweight sports coupe, the RPM-8 doesnât actually need much power to be a great driverâs car, but with over 400 bhp on tap itâs mind-blowing. What, then hides under its rear deck?
A 3.6-liter, port-injected, normally-aspirated flat-crank V-8 sits amidships and is mounted longitudinally. This is actually one of the largest engines that can be placed in the vehicle (in terms of physical size, not displacement) when used in its mid-engined configuration. An aggressive cam profile is responsible for its high specific output and ensures that it can rev all the way to its 8,800 rpm redline without any reliability issues.
And the best part? At <$30k with a 20% markup (or <$25k without one) itâs a bargain for what is essentially a supercar, although it is really an extreme track car.
ahertono - NMC RPM-8.zip (93.8 KB)
NMC? You stole my companyâs name!
3 Likes
Not exactly. The NMC I mentioned in the previous post is actually Norton Motor Cars, an American manufacturer headquartered in Los Angeles, CA and known for a diverse product portfolio. Also, one of my other brand abbreviations, ADM, is short for Automobili De Moreno, an Italian brand. Last but not least, Harris-Albury Motor Manufacturing International Inc. (the result of a partnership between Australian manufacturer Albury Motors and British brand Harris Cars Ltd.) is abbreviated to HAMMII. Iâm sorry I didnât realize sooner that you had already used the abbreviation NMC for your own company earlier⌠and from now on I will just use DMA instead. And yes, my car is inspired by, and competes with, Ramâs latest creation.
Dear @abg7 I got the name ADM before you even joined the forums, please stop using it.
Though NOTHING, stop using other companies acronyms.
AND AGAIN donât tag people, we all know who razyx and corvette are, and pretty much what mods they made.
Second, the idea of this thread is to OTHER people reviewing your car, not to PRAISE YOURSELF on why you think you built a great car.
Well, thatâs for us, as reviewers, to decided in this thread.
Third (although this is more of an ethical and subjective issue), your car isnât cleary inspired in the corvette C6, but on ramâs car (see. no tagging because you --and pretty much all the active members of this forum-- know who ram is)
http://discourse.automationgame.com/t/rams-ramming-rams/17986/79?u=sillyworld
that, mind you, was critized by you for looking like C6 years before it was released.
You could have been more honest and said you build it to compete with him, or inspired or something, after all, is not like there is not an honest and open wide known competition in this forum (maesima vs saminda, GG vs every other company that builds racetrack machines, the fastest hot hatch list).
You honestly are becoming the yardstick by which an unpleasant forum member is measured with, Iâd rather go the memeâs hell into the pits of banning to recover pottogad
8 Likes
That massive rip aside 
thereâs one thing I do want to emphasise: youâre technically allowed to present your car any way you want, as an attempt to influence people who are reviewing your car. However, if they should find good reason to disagree with your assessment, you can bet theyâll say so all the more emphatically if they think youâre spin-doctoring. Thatâs the beauty of requiring people to upload the car. No matter how many screenshots you post and how many superlative adjectives you type to describe your beautiful inspired creation.
2 Likes