There’s a 40 point gap between 18th and 4th? It must be a tight midpack.
4 Likes
Well not last for my first challenge, its an improvement, i recently bought the game but it was fun making an unsporty car
5 Likes
---- Round 1 ----
The good, the bad and the.. very bad (Part 1)
It’s been ~2 weeks since the three grandchildren started looking for a new car for their grandmother. They’ve looked through magazines, asked relatives, asked co-workers, talked to journalists and much more besides. They’ve all now made a list of cars they think should work as cars for Birgitta. They decide to meet up on a Saturday evening to look through what cars they’ve all found.
J: Alright, so how’s your guyses search been going?
A: I think it’s gone quite well for me.
L: Yeah I’ve had some good success as well.
J:Yeah I’m surprised with the amount of options I’ve found. However I do think it’s a good idea to present what cars we’ve all found and we can just skim over each one to see if we can eliminate anything right off the bat.
A: Yeah that sounds like a good idea.
J: Okay so we’ve got 21 cars to look at, Lisa why don’t you start with something?
L: Alright.
@Knugcab - IP Rubiq
L: So this here is an “IP Rubiq”.
Lisa shows a press photo of the” Rubiq”
L: I think it’s quite a fun take on a small car.
J: What do you mean small? That’s clearly an SUV.
L: I mean yeah, it really looks like one. But of all the cars I’ve looked at, it’s actually one of the smallest.
J: Wow, really? Well then, what do we think about the looks?
A: Personally I have nothing against it. Maybe a bit cluttered in the front.
J: Yeah honestly I don’t like it that much. I mean from the side it’s quite ok. But I’m not really a fan of the front or the rear
L: Okay, so we don’t think it’s a particularly good looking car.
A: Yeah, no, not really. But what did the reviews say? Maybe that will save it?
L: They were mostly positive. It got commended for its good reliability and good fuel economy. Apart from that, most magazines said it was just about average.
J: Okay well if the engineering is not that outstanding and we’re not so sure about the looks, I think we have to eliminate it.
A:Yes, agreed.
Eliminated based on looks
OOC summary
Looks wise, I’m not really that much of a fan. The sides are nice with some good and fun design work. I also like the 2-tone look, I would’ve never have thought this orangey color would work this well within the pale white/beige. But, I think there is way too much going on at the front, with grill mesh everywhere and the very big lights. I also don’t think the “half-elongated circle” grill works. All the other design language on the car is very, very boxy making this more rounded shape look odd and out of place. The rear end has good thought behind it but I think there are some things that don’t work. Firstly, I don’t like the third brake light. I think It would look better being more integrated into the body instead of sticking out in the way it does. However the biggest visual flaw at the rear in my opinion is the very tall and oddly shaped glass house. The rear window is quite big and looks quite out of proportion. The rear also curves inwards right where the beige starts and this smooth curvature is really odd. Like mentioned before, most of the styling is very boxy and this smooth curve looks out of place.
The engineering is pretty average. I don’t have any real realism gripes either. My only point is that multiple piston calipers feel a bit weird and unnecessary. The techpool leaves quite a bit on the table and could use further optimization. The quality use also leaves room for improvement. The engine is for the most part good with good mostly good choices. Looking at the graphs however, there is space to make the engine more efficient. Either with more compression, a less aggressive fuel map or a different intake manifold. You could also squeeze out more reliability with some usage of Ignition timing and a lower redline, especially with the redline being 1100rpm over peak power. But overall it’s good. On the chassis you’ve also left a bit of driveability on the table with the car being a bit too understerry.
Overall it’s not a bad car. The engineering is mostly there and on par. It’s mostly let down by the looks as it’s definitely not on par with the top entries here and it therefore will not move on to the next round.
@abg7 - AMS Abella 1.0 75bhp
J: I present to you.. the “AMS abella”.
Jakob holds a magazine folded in half up with a picture of the car
A: Holy.. This thing looks like something I would draw in middle school.
L: Yeah the styling department should definitely have put some more time into this.
J: While yes, I do agree it looks like it was designed by an intern, most of the reviews were very positive.
A: Well yeah, I would hope so. But I honestly think with that look we have to eliminate it.
L: Yeah definitely.
Eliminated based on looks
OOC summary
To be quite frank. This car does not look good. It feels very low effort and is more something I would’ve expected from a new player. The front lacks both shape and depth. You’ve also basically not followed any bodylines at all. The rear is marginally better than the front. But just like the Rubiq I don’t like the third brake light and would much rather see it integrated into the design instead of just being slapped on. The lettering on the rear also seems oversized. I’m not so sure about the molding piece at the very bottom of the rear bumper. From the side it looks very awkward. This design doesn’t do much right.
However on the engineering side, much more is done properly. Nearly all stats are above average. The only stat really dragging you down is your comfort which is far behind. I also don’t have anything to comment on when it comes to realism. Where you fall behind is on your techpool usage. It’s definitely not bad but there is more to gain here. The choice of a 3 cylinder does hurt your comfort with it being a quite inherently unbalanced setup. There is also some general fine tuning from the engine that could’ve helped you. Overall however, no major flaws.
As a cohesive whole there is a massive difference between the engineering skill and design skill. While the engineering is above par, the design is so far behind it utterly kills this car’s hope and therefore its journey ends here.
@Yewnos100 - Ikeda Lunette 1.8 s Auto 3door
L: Here, look at this green little cutie.
Lisa shows a picture of the Ikeda Lunette.
L:It looks so happy. It’s an Ikeda.
A: Ooohh… is that what it says
Anders leans closer to the picture Lisa is holding.
A: I thought it said Ikea at first. I was like “since when did Ikea start making cars?!”. Though I have to say it doesn’t look too bad, even if the design is a bit flat. What do you think, Jakob?
J: I like it, even if it’s nothing special, not so sure on the rear end though…
A:Yeah, the rear is probably the weak point of the car.
L: Okay then we all like the looks at least. However… one small issue.
A and J: What?
L: Well… it was noted on the roadtest by quite a few of the sites I looked at that some of the engineering was… well unconventional.
A: unconventional in what way?
L: For example they noted that the car sports dual wishbone front suspension and multilink rear suspension. Some raised concerns that stuff like this is usually reserved for more premium cars and that it would result in quality issues on a cheaper car like this.
A: Dual wishbone suspension on a cheap hatchback?!? What in the world…
L:They also noted that some other weird tuning made it not so user friendly.
J: Yeah uuh… I vote this car out.
A: Yeah, me too.
Eliminated due to engineering realism
OOC summary
I think you’ve got a good idea for the design. However the front lacks molding and thus looks flat, even if there is some nice detailing here and there. You’ve also got some good sense of following body lines here and there. From the side it’s fairly ok. But I really, really, really don’t like that round side indicator. On the rear I don’t like the rear lights or the reflectors with both looking odd. I think you could’ve benefited greatly from doing more custom work on the rear lighting.
On the engineering front I have some major realism gripes with this car, as well as tuning gripes. You went with dual wishbone and multilink on the suspension setup. This is way outside the scope of what would’ve been used as these systems are both quite expensive and complex. This is something more found in high end premium cars, and not even among them it was super common. On the engine you’ve used ITBs which is also widely unrealistic. I really shouldn’t need to explain why here. Both these things earn you a hefty score penalty. Your stats, for the most part, are quite bad with most being either below average and or just about average. The only good stat is your comfort, which is the highest of all entries, but this stems from your suspension setup which I’ve already made my opinion clear on. The suspension setup causes a domino effect across the whole car. With them being so expensive it leaves no room for quality or good parts anywhere else. Your techpool usage also exacerbates the problem. Another problem is that your redline is only 100 rpm more than peak power. Your engine would’ve performed better with a higher readline. As a result of your low redline, the gaps between gears become bigger than you should wish for. Nearly now overdrive also hurts you.
While the design is overall ok, it does fall behind a lot of others. That combined with the sub-par engineering and the realism penalties this car cannot move on.
@DuceTheTruth100 - Pluto S1
A:Here. Have a look at this, it’s Pluto S1 and… I’m not so sure about it.
Andreas pulls up a picture of the S1 on his laptop
A: It was recommended by one of my friends and at first I liked it, but I don’t know anymore.
L: Well what do the reviews say?
A:Eh.. most of them weren’t that impressed. Most comments were directed towards it not being driver friendly at all. Apparently though it does 0-100 in less than 8 seconds! Which is really quite fast for something of this class.
J: Wow, that’s starting to get near hot hatch territory. I’m not so sure Brigitta will be needing the speed though…
A: Yeah she definitely doesn’t.
L: What did they say about the looks? I personally like it.
A: Well most comments were positive. Some noted though that the car looks a bit out of date even if it was apparently just facelifted, which I kinda agree on. It does look more in place during the 90s, which is when it was originally released, and it certainly looks like they’ve changed nothing.
L: Okay well that’s a lot of negatives, there has to be an upside right?
A: Yes, it’s price.
J: Which is?
A: 13 000.
L and J: What??!?
L: That is very cheap. Maybe a bit too cheap?
A: Yeah I think so too. Even if this car is cheap, I don’t think it outweighs the downsides.
J: So… we eliminate it?
A: Yeah I think so.
Eliminated due to engineering
OOC summary
I like the design of this car. It’s nothing unique but it certainly does its job. It does look really out of date however and doesn’t really look like something from the mid-00s. The front is the weakest part of the design. I don’t like the headlights, it makes them look like its got a pair of those “speedy” glasses. I don’t know if anyone else knows what I’m talking about but that’s all I honestly see. I also don’t like the molding underneath the grill. Apart from that, I don’t have too much to say about the looks. The only other comment I have is that the fitment is not nice. The car looks like it’s got a liftkit installed, it’s so high up. The wheels are also a bit too far in for my taste.
Your stats are all below average. The only redeeming factor is the price, which is the absolute lowest of all entries. However I think you aimed a bit too low this time. But I definitely admire your efforts. On top of this, just like the Ikeda, you’ve chosen ITBs. Which gives you a realism penalty.
Overall a good try, but you aimed a bit too low on the price which ended up hurting your score a bit too much and therefore you got eliminated.
@Hilbert - Eltrè Whirl 1.0 Supérieur Elite HiGlass
L: One of the French exchange students recommended this car to me and I think it shows really good potential.
Both Jakob and Andreas stares in awe at the picture Lisa is holding
L: It’s got the most complicated name ever.. It’s called the “Eltrè Whirl 1.0 Supérieur Elite HiGlass”.
A: Yeah.. that’s a mouthful for sure. But I gotta say. It looks quite good.
J: Yeah it for sure does!
L: On top of that, it outscored its competitors in nearly all categories according to the reviews I read.
A:Well I think this car is definitely something we should go look at in person then!
Car moves on to the next round!
To be continued..
@Isabella - Hexe Jocelyn CL100
L: Now this purple hatch is called the “Hexe Jocelyn CL100”. Before we sat down here I thought this was ok, but after I heard about the concerns for the Ikeda, I started to doubt this car.
A: What do you mean?
L: Well that whole thing about unconventional engineering. This car also has multilink suspension.
J:Hmm.. well what does the reviews say?
L: Well for the most part mediocre.
A: Yeah the looks don’t make me feel anything special either.
J: Well with all that considered, I think we should cross this off our list.
L:Yeah, okay, probably.
Eliminated due to engineering realism
OOC summary
The front looks are fairly ok, looking a bit swift like. But like most of the other cars getting eliminated here, it lacks depth due to lack of molding. But otherwise the ideas on the front are ok, not good, but not bad either. However I can’t say the same about the rear, which honestly does not look good at all. The taillight looks really weird and awful. I’m not a fan of the design on the rear bumper either.
On the engineering side of things you get a pair of realism penalties which affect your score quite badly. The first thing is the use of multilink suspension, which I explained in the review for the “Ikeda”. The second thing is the use of tubular headers which feels very out of place on a cheap hatchback. The stats are mostly average, drivability and SVC are the stats which are mostly lacking. The comfort is fairly good, but that mostly comes from the use of the multilink suspension. The car mostly falls down on a sub-optimal quality and techpool use. You would’ve really benefited from having some more overdrive as right now you don’t there is basically zero. The high amount of camber you’re using is also affecting your SVC badly.
@Ultimate_Billy - Bovos Cinnamon
J: I give you.. the “Bovos Cinnamon”
Jakob holds up a picture of the “Cinnamon”
A: Hmmm.. the looks are quite nice.. at least the front. The rear is not as certain.
L: Well I like it at leasts, I dont think the rear is that bad.
J: Review wise, most said it was fairly average with most of the praise directed towards its nice comfort.
A: Well that’s good, soooo.. we add this to the “look at list” then?
J: I don’t know.. some concerns were raised because of the amount of toys installed on the interior were prone to break, which warranted costly repairs.
A: ooh.. well that makes it a bit more difficult. But with this new information I think we eliminate it. Grandma wont use a lot of the extra stuff and will just be annoyed when it breaks.
Eliminated due to engineering
OOC summary
I’m a fan of the front fascia of this car. You’ve done quite a good job here. The only thing I don’t like are the vents around the foglights. The shape looks out of place. The shape of the rear is very weird and thus in turn makes the rear lights also look strange. I also don’t like the placement of the reverse lights. Apart from that, not much else to say here. A good design for the most part.
On the engineering you get a penalty for the use of Dual wishbone suspension and the use of a premium satnav. My gripes with the suspension I think I’ve already made clear. On the satnav, I think its a bit much premium for this type of car. The rest of the tuning is mostly fine and your stats are quite average. Where you fall down is on reliability, SVC and fuel economy. The reliability is hurt mostly from the use of Satnav. It also negatively affects your SVC. The high camber and DB suspension hurts the SVC making it below average. You’ve got good gearbox tuning which helps your fuel usage. But the engine is very inefficient and thus screws the fuel economy. Both your TP and quality could also be better. You’ve spent most of the techpool on the engine. Usually it’s better to spend more on the car instead as most of the ET and quality cost stems from there. With your use of Satnav, I would recommend adding more quality here to balance the reliability penalty.
Even though this car looks good, its engineering isn’t on par with the top entries and therefore gets eliminated.
Current Scoreboard
1st - –
2nd - –
3rd - –
4th - –
5th - –
6th - –
7th - –
8th - –
9th - –
10th - –
11th - @Knugcab (188,2 points)
12th - @abg7 (183,2 points)
13th - @Ultimate_Billy (179,4 points)
14th - –
15th - –
16th - @DuceTheTruth100 (174,9 points)
17th - @Yewnos100 (168,1 points)
18th - –
19th - @Isabella (167,3 points)
20th - –
21st - –
15 Likes
That was a cool review! You are absolutely right, its a refresh, one that barely nudged the bar from the previous car. My vision was the 2nd gen Saturn cars, grocery getters at best. I was hoping basement bargain pricing would get it through. Salute to the rest of the crowd 
2 Likes
Fair TBH. The Rubiq is an old build now, barely updated, and I have gotten better lately, it just feel interesting to check how it stood the test of time.
The brake piston thing has always felt a bit weird in Auto. Keep in mind that the car it is replacing actually ran 4 piston calipers up front 
1 Like
The review format and in-depth writing is really good.
Only “complaint” I have is the penalities for using things like mulitlink and double wishbone suspension. They seem reasonable enough for 2006, if maybe a tad premium. They would make the cars more expensive however so wouldn’t there use just be the price brought into the equation. If we were penalised for anything other than MacPherson front and torsion beam rear it would have been nice to be told originally.
6 Likes
Completely fair. I will take that into account for the future.
McPherson and torsion beam aren’t the only things that wont attract a penalties. The penalties also aren’t enough to nullify the advantage gained from a well tuned setup with multilink and/or dual whisbone, which is the reason I didn’t mention it.
I didn’t want the challenge to be absolutely dominated by multilink setups, which I feared from my testing.
On the realism front. I will stand by that IRL these systems were too complex and costly for a car in this segment. Not even in cars today it’s seen outside quite premium offerings.
4 Likes
I know the mini uses a mulitlink rear in this class. It’s definitely more of a “small premium” thing though.
I would guess at the inspirations all using some type of torsion beam or semi independent rear at best.
4 Likes
it’s also worth noting that multilink on cheaper cars is not at all the same as automation’s multilink
automation’s is based on the 5-link rear suspension you’d find on the end of like, a 5 series, but what cars like the mini and anything else in this segment that claims to have multilink actually have something closer to a modified Chapman strut irl, giving better handling, ride control and comfort, but being significantly cheaper than the “true” multilink that automation offers
5 Likes
I have always found DW hard to argue against in cheap car challenges considering that the Civic ran it for multiple generations.
7 Likes
Yes, but Honda went a quite lonely route there - which explains maybe why they handle better than their japanese counterparts. All through the 80s a Mitsubishi was a horse carriage chassis in comparison.
4 Likes
Discussions like this are what make these challenges so informative. :D
I feel like DW would make sense at least on the higher end of this price range. The price limit isn’t quite premium, but it is a bit too high to be a pure “cheap car” challenge.
Also, I’m surprised (and worried) that a satnav would be “unrealistic” for 2006. I thought they’d have been at least available on the top-spec trims of mass-market cars.
6 Likes
6 Likes
I knew someone in 2006 who had satnav. They owned several McDonald’s franchises in the greater Houston area.
6 Likes
No car in this segment (apart from special editions) had stanav. Even for premium stuff like Mercedes and BMW it was a pricey optional extra.
3 Likes
But yeah, @Edsel, I always feel like I learn from these exchanges of knowledge on top of having a fun time. The level of inherent knowledge this game and community fosters is so cool.
5 Likes
From the inspirations, the fanciest interior of the fiat panda. It has climate control, but a cd player and even just electric windows in the front.
4 Likes
I see here, so the setup I ran would probably be appropriate on something like an A3. Same with ITBs I suppose?
I’m not complaining, in fact it was very nice to see what exactly was wrong with my build! 
Any general fine-tuning tips you could give? The weird engine specs were for the sake of reliability, so at least I can note I shouldn’t chase after one stat.
2 Likes
If you want, I can provide a more detailed tuning write up when I get home
On the ITBs. ITBs are basically reserved for extreme tuned N/A engines, so think N/A race car engines. If you want to find them on an OEM you have to look at high performance bike engines.
IRL, individual throttle bodies can provide both major servicing and engineering headaches due them needing to be rebuilt and rebalanced and if not electronically controlled they are EXTREMELY sensitive to air pressure and density changes. They are very expensive and make a lot of noise and are therefore reserved as the ultimate final step of N/A tuning. For road legal cars, you’ll have too look at either crazy N/A builds or exotics like the Ferrari F40 and F50 or BMW M engines like the V8 in the M3 or the V10 in the M5.
You will never find them on road legal engines with forced induction, not even exotics. There are multiple reasons for this with the simplest being you can just compensate with added boost.
6 Likes
The SSC Tuatara is an exception - but only because its designers wanted as much power as they could get, not just from boost alone:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a65924005/ssc-tuatara-is-the-corvette-of-hypercars/
1 Like