What WHAT? Positive downforce?? I’m 100% sure I have plenty downforce. My car have 1.10 G at low speed 1.14G at high speed. Some screw up upload. I was excited for this challenge. With this many challenges player. I probably won’t ask you to cover. Such shame 
Not me making a separate company just for this challenge 
3 Likes
As i said in the rules, positive downforce on the graph in the aerodynamics page was banned - this is how I received your entry. Considering it’s producing dramatic amounts of downforce, I do not feel as if this was an import issue.
so you mean no downforce to increase grip allow?
correct, any amount of positive downforce was banned.
1 Like
Oh I was misunderstood, I thought you mean NO lift up. So i guess i understand accepted banned
My guess was that this had happened 
Common mistake most new competitors make
1 Like
Damn
Inshallah I am saved from da bins
12 Likes
honestly a rookie mistake from my end, forgetting to change the name of all things
well i’ll take it, lesson learned the hard way for my first auto challenge ever
best of luck to everyone else participating!
bruh I thought 31800+2000=33,800$ which is under 35000$ at 1,200$
welp this is a learning experience so i can learn from this - this was my first challenge so yeah
I didn’t see an “unleaded” fuel requirement; just a “95 RON/91 AKI maximum”, whereas E10 has lower octane than 95 RON. Also, I see the fallacies with the gearing or power curve, but Engineering and R&D had different objectives, leading to tough compromises to push the vehicle to production. Nonetheless, this was a fun build. Thanks for your consideration, and see you on the next challenge. 
1 Like
the car you submitted to me was $33,400, so once I added the $2,000 penalty for AWD, you were 400 dollars overbudget.
Ok I get it, I made good car but it got binned bc of minor oversight
Auto and Motoring Hot Hatch Comparison Test - Results (Phase 1 - Part 1)
Auto and Motoring Review Department, February 2026
On a cold day in February, the interns at Auto and Motoring’s review department were tasked with going through all of the currently on-sale hot hatches, and narrowing it down to the top cars in the segment, after which the review editors will take over and select which cars make it into the full comparison test, set for the June 2026 issue..
@cuvee - Lalune ATK
The interns started with the Lalune ATK, reading through some manufacturer-provided literature and owner’s forums, they find that the ATK isn’t as sporty as initially presented, it’s difficult to drive, and owners have reported that their ATKs have been in and out of the shop more often than not, costing quite a bit to be fixed even under warranty. Additionally, the interns weren’t fans of the ATK’s design, finding it to be too simple and confused. After a brief deliberation, they decide to move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Decent, but below average sportiness, fine performance statisics, but very low drivability (made worse by the lack of variable power steering, which I find odd), an unrealistically high top speed, well below average reliability and comfort, and at the maximum price cap with extremely high service costs - the Lalune’s appeal quickly dwindles, and the design does little to make it better, with a mishmash of ideas and shapes that don’t fit well together, and very bright yellow paint that doesn’t help to hide the flaws.
@mrqwer4 - Modern Hot Hatch
Next on the interns’ docket is the Modern Hot Hatch, which upon research they find that the Modern Hot Hatch isn’t sporty at all, slow and not particularly fun to throw around in the corners, and while it’s easier to drive than the ATK, it’s similarly unreliable, though quite a bit cheaper to service in the long run. Much like they were with the ATK, the interns were not fans of the Modern Hot Hatch’s design, finding it to be dated for a 2026MY car, oddly proportioned, and random bits of trim on the design they weren’t sure did anything to improve the aesthetics, and with that, they added it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Modern Hot Hatch unfortunately doesn’t have particularly competitive engineering, with the lowest sportiness out of all of the non-instabinned entries, the second worst overall performance statistics, and while some of the 3 and 2 star priority stats are okay, the very high purchase price overshadows those okay areas. Design is an issue too - it’s dated, oddly proportioned, and there are random pieces of trim on the design that do little to improve the overall design. Just not a strong effort in this case.
@GassTiresandOil - Armor Attrezzo SC4
Next on the interns’ list was the Armor Attrezzo, submitted for contention in the SC4 trim. Based on initial impressions from other automotive outlets and owners’ forums, the interns found that the Armor was sporty - but other cars in the segment have it beaten on feel and performance, and while it’s reportedly the easiest car to drive out of the cars they’ve looked at thus far, other similarly prices cars are easier still. Fuel economy is among the worst in the segment, it’s expensive to service, and aesthetically it looks dated, almost like a holdover from the 2000s that kept getting facelifted again and again. Not convinced by the Attrezzo’s overall package, the interns decide to add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Engineering is generally solid, though I wouldn’t have expected active suspension here. Performance is good, and sportiness is decent, and most of the other stats are pretty good - however, it’s very thirsty at 22mpg, it’s quite expensive, both to buy and service, and while those things are lower priority, cars that cost the same beat it in many, if not all of the other higher priority stats. Design was an issue too - I found it to be dated, oddly proportioned and almost PT Cruiser-y from the side view, and things like the black panel on the tailgate feel unnecessary and don’t help to elevate the design. Not a bad car, just one that is simply beaten by others.
@Capri78 - Mariz Corsica SR Roadsport
Up next for the interns is the Mariz Corsica, submitted for contention in the SR Roadsport trim. Looking over some initial impressions, they find that the Corsica isn’t particularly sporty or fun to drive, on the slower end of the segment, and while it seems to be pretty reliable - annual service costs have proven to be exceptionally high for the segment. Moving to the design, the interns find it to be very busy on both ends of the design, and despite being busy visually - it lacks depth and surfacing to make it seem more modern. Moreover, if you took the racing stripe off the hood, the interns agreed that they’d have a hard time believing that this was supposed to be the sporty trim, and with that, they moved the Corsica into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Corsica has issues with both engineering and design, having well below average sportiness, below average performance, drivability and fuel economy, though raw practicality and cargo capacities are solid, reliability is above average, and the purchase price is very reasonable - however, service costs are significantly higher than average. There’s also some weird engineering decisions - a clutch type LSD is out of place (typically it’s helical for this segment, based on my research), and the design suffers from a lack of depth, the front and rear fascias both have too much going on and could have used some editing, and if you took the racing stripe off the hood, you’d have a hard time telling that this is supposed to be the “sporty” model.
@Jaeger - Rennara Vivka GS6
Coming up next in the interns’ stack of cars, they have the Rennara Vivka, submitted in GS6 trim. Overall ownership experience seems to be positive, it’s plenty easy to drive and plenty of fun behind the wheel, reliability has proven to be very strong, and annual service costs are low - the biggest issue based on both owner reports and other outlet’s reviews seems to be the aesthetics, which the interns agree with. They found it to be too horizontal and square which makes it seem dated visually, the proportions are odd, and the brown color they seem to keep popping up in does the whole design no favors. With aesthetics being a continually bigger part of what influences new car purchases, the interns decide not to move forward with the Rennara, and add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Engineering was not the issue with the Rennara, at least not for the most part - other than running an I6 for.. some reason and front-biased AWD standing out, the core engineering decisions were fine, and purely statistically it does pretty well - solid performance, high but still below average sportiness, excellent drivability, reliability, and safety, with a reasonably low purchase price and service costs to boot. The bigger issue here was the design, which is oddly proportioned, too horizontal and square (which makes it look older than it is), wheels that are too small, and an odd paint choice that does the whole design no favors. With a stronger design, this likely would have gone further, but with design being a 4 star priority - I just can’t make a case for it to move further on.
@jorge_703 - Ajkula H26
Up next on the interns’ list is the Ajkula H26. Looking over the spec sheet, the interns are befuddled by the H26’s odd engine and unconventional transmission, and owner reports found it to drive relatively sporty, but it was decidedly not fast, and aesthetically the H26 leaves a lot to be desired, seeming to go for a minimalistic design, but not one that’s well intentioned as it just end up looking bare. Knowing the review editors would never go for it, the interns add the H26 to the rejection pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The H26 was a weird one - raw sportiness was alright, but it by far was the slowest car submitted, but it was statistically average to below average beyond that. The biggest issue with the engineering were the decisions behind it - a 720cc, SOHC, supercharged I3 revving to a whopping 11,000rpm, a 7-speed automanual with kei car levels of gear reduction, drum rear brakes, and the list goes on. Design was a pretty big issue too - it lacks detail, it lacks depth, there’s too much contrasting black plastic on the front, and it both rides too low and has wheels that are too big. Interesting first effort, but if you want to do better in the future - sticking to engineering choices and design cues that real cars have is the fastest way to do that.
@George - FMW ES200
Next on the interns’ list is the FMW ES200 which seems to be a mixed bag - fast in a straight line, but not in the corners, which overall contributes to it not feeling particularly sporty overall, a poor driving experience normally, and it seems to be one of the more unreliable cars in the segment, with high annual service costs as well. Design is a sore point amongst the interns as well - they all collectively find it to be too simple, lack depth or visual excitement, and because of that, the interns move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The FMW unfortunately isn’t particularly competitive, with well below average sportiness and just average straight line performance (20m grip is below average), very low drivability, reliability, and a high purchase price and service costs to boot. Engineering decisions are weird too - a 2.0L turbocharged inline-6 that revs to 9,000RPM, tire stagger I’m not convinced you needed, and a variable intake that seems unnecessary, and that hurts overall reliability. Design is an issue too - it’s too simple, lacks depth and detail, and I don’t find it to look particularly sporty either.
@lotto77 - Halvson CU Hyper Newton
Next on the interns’ list is the Halvson CU, submitted as the Hyper Newton model. Weird name aside, the interns are immediately not swayed by the design, which they collectively agree feels thrown together, dated, and oddly constructed, with large swaths of grey on the front and rear fascias that do little to improve the overall design. They also find in owner reports that the Halvson isn’t particularly sporty to drive, packed full of fragile tech that seems to break more often than not, which in turn costs owners an arm and a leg to have fixed. Following some more deliberation, the interns unanimously decide to add the Halvson to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Halvson is eliminated for both engineering and design, but let’s talk about engineering first - realism is immediately a problem here, you have both 5 valves per cylinder and direct injection on the same engine, which is a physical impossibility as there wouldn’t be enough room for the 5th valve, a fuel injector and the spark plug inside the combustion chamber/cylinder head, and while front staggered tires are a thing on one car in this segment, but that car produces way more power than you do, so I question the usefulness of a (10mm) stagger in this case, and a VGT also seems unnecessary given the mild amount of boost and engine output. Statistically things don’t look much better, with well below average sportiness, average performance stats, average drivability, raw practicality and comfort, and very low safety and cargo capacities. Price is high, and service costs are exceptionally high. Design is a big issue too, the contrasting grey visor on the front and rear tailgate is forced and poorly integrated, the front fascia is way too busy and has too many conflicting shapes, and the front and rear lighting elements are too big and too square - and what bothers me most about the design is that I feel as if I have said all of these things about similar designs from you in the past.
@06DPA - Dingaling PN15 B8
Next up on the interns’ list is the Dingaling PN15, submitted in B8 trim. Reading through reviews, the interns find that while the PN15 is nice enough to drive and feels relatively sporty, other cars in this segment do much better for the same amount of money, though the PN15 does have the advantage of being reasonably reliable with low annual service costs. The biggest issue, however, is the design, which the interns fine both messy and too simple, with what looks like pre-dented bodywork under the headlights, and odd proportions to boot. Knowing it isn’t likely that the review editors would go for the PN15, the interns move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Dingaling is eliminated for a few key reasons, starting with design. The Dingaling was much too simple, the wheels are too small and crushed under the body thanks to a too-low ride height, odd proportions, and a messy front design to boot. Realism played a part too - a full aluminum construction is weird, SSF is out of place in this segment, I question the use of STA rear suspension, and the huge I4 engine raises an eyebrow. Engineering has some flaws too - while sportiness and performance are good, the Dingaling falls behind with below average drivability, below average raw practicality (but cargo figures were good), below average safety, and a high purchase price. While the Dingaling does do some things well - service costs are low, prestige is quite high, it just makes too many mistakes elsewhere to stay in contention.
@Speeeed_D3m0n - Vignale Haute Dragonne
Next up on the interns’ list is the Vignale Haute Dragonne. Reading some owner reviews, the interns find that Vignale isn’t particularly sporty compared to other cars in the segment, very poor reliability with high annual service costs, real world practicality seems to be lacking, though owners did seem to like the overall design. After a brief discussion over the entire package the Vignale offers, the interns agree to move it into the rejected pile, knowing that the editors wouldn’t choose it over other cars in the segment.
End Result - Eliminated. The Vignale is a decently well designed entry, but it fails on engineering, with just average sportiness (straight line performance was okay but too quick for the desired segment, and 20m grip was well below average), and similar losses in the 3 and 2 star stats, with well below average raw practicality, below average cargo capacities, very low reliability, comfort, and fuel economy. Price was good, but service costs weren’t a strong point either - at $1808.1 they were well above average. More than statistics however, it makes a few realism mistakes - active suspension is out of place in this segment, and while a V6 isn’t inherently an issue - one making 400hp on cast internals is slightly weird and hurts reliability, and a VGT seems unnecessary here.
@ThatEpicBob - Kuruma Estimate GT-S
Towards the end of their list, the interns land on the Kuruma Estimate, submitted in GT-S trim. Upon reading owner reports, the interns find that the Estimate is flawed in just about every way - it isn’t sporty or particularly quick, it isn’t nice to drive, reliability has been lower than expected, and comfort is not a high point. The one area where the Estimate seems to do well is in price - just $25,800, but the interns agree that price means little when the Estimate doesn’t seem to get much else right, and move it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Estimate is eliminated for both design and engineering - design is too simple, lacks a lot of detail, and it just isn’t capable of competing with other entries here. Engineering doesn’t help, with the Estimate scoring well behind the average in every major stat - sportiness, performance, drivability, reliability, comfort - the only place it doesn’t seem to fall behind the competition is in price, $25,800. However, winning on price is a hollow victory if your car can’t compete anywhere else.
@Nebulon - MAG Mulga MPi
Last up for today, the interns have the MAG Mulga, submitted in the MPi trim. Reading owner reports, the interns find that the Mulga has been less than reliable, with expensive annual service costs, real world practicality has been less than perfect for some owners, it hasn’t been found to be particularly comfortable, but on the other hand owners have praised the Mulga’s typical driving experience, safety technology and build quality, feeling a step above some of the other cars in this segment. However, other auto journalists have been divided on the design, some finding it to be a nice enough entry to the segment, and others finding it to be quite bulbous and busy visually. After some further discussion, and considering how expensive the Mulga is, the interns decide to slide it into the rejected pile, and call it a day.
End Result - Eliminated. The Mulga is eliminated due to an overly bulbous design with a busy rear end, and while it puts up respectable performance and a solid sportiness stat - it’s handily beaten in all of the 3 star and 2 star stats, particularly comfort, reliability, raw practicality (the cargo capacities for passengers and cargo were solidly average), though drivability, safety, and prestige were all good. Some of this I may have been able to forgive had the Mulga been cheaper to buy and service, but at $35,000 and $1824.5 respectively - there are simply more well-rounded cars in this field.
After a full day at work narrowing down which cars they’ll hand over to the review editors, the interns decide to call it a night, and get right back at it the next day.
Continued in Part 2
31 Likes
I can tell I still haven’t gotten to grips with modern car design yet, but eventually I’ll get there, I’ve got a better understanding [vaguely] of the engineering now, so hopefully my cars will be less terrible in future.
2 Likes
Oh. 
. I kinda saw this coming for my uniqueslop tiny I6 setup but whatever lol, good luck for the rest of the entrants! (@Vanilla avenge meeee…)
1 Like
With that in mind, is there any chance of the direct injection/5v DOHC head combo being rendered unavailable entirely in a future update? I don’t think so.
No chance. At best an increase in PU and ET is in order, since I presume it’s theoretically possible with small enough valves but just not worth it to implement.
1 Like
GG. Maybe should have tried being a bit less unique, and the 2.8 I4 is a little into cheese territory. Even I don’t like the design I ended up with lol