An unknown and obscure design company was intrigued by the competition and decided to join with:
1989 Crusoe Bonus 1.2
2 Likes
And entries are locked in! I got more entrants than I expected- for a little while I though HighOctaneLove was going to win by default there. Well, if you read the rules there’s one thing that has to be done before I can hand out final scores: the poll!
Vote for one (or more) car you think should win, based on appearance. I did my best to take similar screenshots for each car, and there’s some more in here that haven’t been posted in the thread yet.
Capybara (HighOctaneLove)
Iota (S31)
Reynard 1200 (Jaimz)
Brasilia (Marcus_gt500)
Crusoe RR (Marv666)
Nakamoto NM5 (jantheman9999)
Bonus 1.2 (pcmoreno)
Libra (titleguy1)
I’ll give it, let’s say, approximately 48 hours for poll votes. I’ve got a spreadsheet to put together for final scoring anyway. Hopefully we’ll see votes from more than just the participants!
6 Likes
If you’re going to drive the cars, remove the number plates from mine, please. I just discovered the mod I used for them crashes Beamng.
1 Like
Scoring Time!
We’ve got 8 entries to sort though, so let’s see who’s the winner. I’ll be covering these in the order I look at them to present my thoughts, then I’ll sum up the actual score ranking at the end.
Cabybara @HighOctaneLove
Engineering: It’s powered by an undersquare 1.6l boxer with DAOHC and multi-EFI making 67 horsepower at 25 miles per gallon. This goes through a 5-speed manual. The chassis is set up with macpherson suspension all around and disc brakes. Comes equipped with premium interior and a cassette player. Lots of tire stagger, handling is reasonable driveable and pulls .78g. All this is at a good price of $17600.
I think this is a solid setup, and test drive surveys agree. There’s sensible decisions here- I think every car submitted uses MacPherson struts. I wonder if double wishbones wouldn’t be better but that’s the minmaxer in me speaking, it’s certainly the realistic choice. This car scores 29.7 points. (I will be rounding to 0.1)
Visual
-Legal: 5/5
-Engineering: 4/5. I guess this is since all the reference “modern” cars I posted were front engine, but almost all the cars submitted include some kind of front grill. Now, it’s my understanding that fake vents were NOT common in 1989. The main grill gets a pass since it’s obviously a stylized false grill, but I’ve still got complaints about this lower vent. Where does it go?
-Sensei Score: 2/3. This is a solid looking car, but I still feel like the front grill is missing out the opportunity to give cars a sleek front end which you can do when they’re rear-engined. The rear lights are a little truck-sized, and the position of the reverse lights is certainly… unique. Still, overall, it’s not bad to look at and it appears sporty. I also have to give credit for sticking to vanilla fixtures. I downloaded the big mod pack later (I didn’t even know about mod collections!) so the other contestants who didn’t hold to my initial request to keep things vanilla have a bit of an unfair advantage. I like the creative use of vents as windshield sprayers.
It took me a long time to notice.
-Poll score: 4.5 (#2)
Final visual score: 15.5
Total score: 45.2
Iota @S31
Engineering: This is an undersquare boxer at 1.5 liters, mEFI, this time with a modern SOHC-4, making 67 horsepower, and… a remarkable 37 miles per gallon fuel economy. This is on a 4-speed automatic as well. Curiously, this car is on enormous drum brakes all around, and 8 pads, skewing far towards comfort. There’s a tiny amount of brake fade. It’s also tuned for maximum sportiness steering. It’s got a little increased quality on the Standard interior, and power steering. This sells for $19400.
This is definitely a car that demonstrates Automation’s quirks. Impressively, this car actually manages to get the square tires bonus. These feats of minmaxery all combine to a score of 31.5 points.
Visual:
-Legal: 5/5
-Engineering: 5/5. I appreciate that there’s a handle and lock on the frunk (even if it’s disguised as a grill).
This car’s also quite modern looking. Plastic bumpers ground it in the 90’s a bit and it’s not too far off a 1990 civic hatch, so I’ll give it a pass.
-Sensei Score: 2/3. The one thing that looks off is the very low profile tires, it’s a good looking car though.
-Poll score: 3 (#5)
-Total visual score: 14.5
Total score: 46.0
Reynard 1200 @Jaimz
Engineering: This car is larger than the last two by a good bit. Its 1.2L SOHC I3 makes 63 horsepower, probably the least out of our entrants, and gets 31 mpg. It’s relatively rich-running at 14.2, and on premium gas with a rather high 9.8 compression. Only a singly muffler, too, it’s relatively loud. 4 speed manual, strong tire staggering (but 0.9g cornering, impressively). Front disc brakes, standard interior, and the cheap kind of power steering make this maybe the cheapest car at $14400.
I’d say this is an impressive contender in terms of performance per budget. Do the market score reflect it? Unfortunately not- there’s a “low comfort penalty” in the Family market, it looks like rock-hard front suspension was used to keep the steering under control. The roll angle is only 4.3 degrees, putting it in sports car territory.
Despite getting a lot of points from low cost, this scores only 27.9 points in the engineering category.
Visual
-Legal: 5/5
-Engineering: 5/5 The front grill is proven fake by the nearby frunk lock. There’s not a lot of air going out the rear for cooling, but it is a small engine with low cooling need.
-Sensei Score: 3/3 The Crusoe design board thinks this is DEFINITELY how cars are going to look in the future, so we should get in on it now. I like the rear pillar window and body line leading to the rear vent. It’s enough to make me overlook the crime of the fake grill, which is saying something.
-Poll score: 3.5 (#4)
-Total visual score: 16.5
Total score: 44.4
Brasilia @Marcus_gt500
Engineering: This car is a LOT more powerful. The 1.7l SOHC-4 oversquare boxer makes 94 horsepower at 6100RPM, and it’s aluminum to save weight. The car only gets 23mpg though (not complaining- it’s honestly a more realistic number). It’s got a 5-speed manual, front disc brakes, and a rear spoiler with good downforce. In a decision that I think is bizarre, it’s equipped with a premium interior and a luxury cassette system (was this a mis-click?). Sure the sound system slaps, but will our buyers find it worth the money? It’s also a very sporty and oversteer prone setup, on standard springs as well. This gives a price of $22300, making it a lot more expensive than the last cars.
This car might be going too far on the sportiness side to sell to regular customers, but I’d sure give it a try. It also gets the square tire bonus. I think the markets just find it too expensive though: despite claiming all 3 bonuses, it scores 22.9
Visual:
-Legal: 5/5
-Engineering: 3/5 There’s enough of a front grill to cool a honda civic, and HYUGE intakes on the rear but nowhere for that air to exit.
-Penalty: -2. This looks solidly like a car from 2004. To the Crusoe design board, it’s too bubbly and the head and tail lights look like a pain to manufacture.
-Sensei Score: 2/3 Putting aside that it’s too futuristic, it’s pleasing to the eye and there’s the right amount of features and empty space. The rear vents are aggressive for an “ordinary” car but they’re kinda cool.
-Poll score: 2.5 (#6)
-Total visual score: 10.5
Total score: 33.4
Crusoe RR @Marv666
Engineering: It’s powered by a 1.4l boxer with SOHC4 configuration. It’s got some interesting material choices: there’s an aluminum head, forged crank and conrods, but hypereutectic cast pistons. This gives it a redline of 7000, well past peak power of 70 horsepower at 6000. Pretty impressive for a little commuter which gets 33mpg. It has a 4-speed manual, 4 disc brakes (well above the tires’ grip, with no ABS, so watch out!) and a standard interior. This car’s also pretty oversteer prone, and the suspension is slightly stiff. It’s pretty cheap at $15600. The car itself takes only 77.8 PU to build, the lowest so far.
This gets the square tire bonus, and decent market scores. Since it claims all 3 bonuses, this gets a 32.4 engineering score.
Visual:
-Legal: 5/5
-Engineering: 5/5 The brake vents are real! The spoiler is fake, but after debating with myself for a while I decided to give this a pass for the “budget trying to be sporty” vibe.
-Sensei Score: 3/3 the all-around plastic bottom feels like a very appropriate choice for the era. Also, how can I complain about every car with a fake front grill and not give points to this one? The Crusoe logo in the light is cool too, as are the wheels. I appreciate the extra detail in the plates too.
-Poll score: 4 points (#3)
-Total visual score: 17
Total score: 49.4
Nakamoto NM5 @jantheman9999
Engineering: This is another of the more powerful motors, a 2.2l DOHC2 boxer which splurges on forged internals. This loses a little score for engineering time overrun, but it makes 89hp and gets 33mpg, a combination the other contestants can’t match. Curiously, all this goes through a 3-speed(!) manual, but it’s also got four disc brakes, and the fronts are vented. It’s got a premium interior, and it has staggered tires but it’s one of the few cars here which is tuned for 100% drivability levels of understeer. This sells for $22400.
The final engineering score includes great market numbers, but the penalties for overrunning on engineering are significant. It scores a total of 25.4 points.
Visual:
-Legal: 5/5
-Engineering: 3/5 It’s got rear side intakes, and a little way for air to come out, but there’s just as much vents on the front of the car and no frunk handle or lock. Does it have a front radiator? Are those fake brake vents?
-Sensei Score: 2/3 The tail-light design is interesting, and it looks a like like, well, a normal car… albeit a normal front engine car. The painted rims with plastic hubcaps are a creative choice.
-Poll score: 2 (#7)
-Total visual score: 12
Total Score: 37.4
Libra @titleguy1
Engineering: This has a 1.6l boxer SOHC2. It’s got pretty steep cams, and makes 90 horsepower at 6200rpm. It’s interesting to see how designs cluster around either 60-70 horsepower or 90 horsepower. This has single-point EFI but springs for tubular headers, and gets 26mpg. The rest of the choices are pretty standard, front disc brakes, and it goes for an 8-track player with upgraded speakers rather than a basic cassette. It’s steering is tuned for sportiness, and it pulls .85g. It’s also got Standard safety, whereas most cars go for advanced, saving weight. This all costs $15800.
This doesn’t get super high market scores but it’s got affordability, it scores 26.0 points.
Visual
-Legal: 4/5, someone seems to have forgot the front wipers!
-Engineering: 3/5 fake brake vents are an issue, but most of all the massive hood scoop. Is that fake too? Does it force extra air to blow rain off the windshield?
-Sensei Score: 2/3 issues aside, the vents look really slick, especially the side vents with a body shape that runs the car’s length. I’m not a fan of the rear light setup though. Although the front wipers were forgotten, the plastic inset for the rear wiper is a nice touch. I also like the strip of painted area below the plastic bumper.
-Poll score: 5 (#1) Apparently people really dig those vents.
-Total visual score: 14
Total score: 40.0
Bonus 1.2 @pcmoreno
Engineering: The long trunk apparently makes enough room for a 1.2l inline 4 in rear longitudinal setup. This engine has DAOHC and multi EFI, making 54 horsepower and getting 23mpg. The transmission is a 4-speed auto with a sporty choice of a limited slip differential, an interesting choice for a family type car. Out of curiosity, I compared it with an open diff and yes, even the Family market likes the LSD more. This is despite that is has no wheelspin issues. It’s tuned for drivability understeer, and has 4 disc brakes with a high quality premium interior. It also includes ABS. It costs $23400, making it the most expensive car here, despite its low-powered engine.
Despite its price, it must have low maintenance costs, because it’s more affordable than, say, the Brasilia. However, it has significant ET and PU overruns. It’s also the ONLY car to miss the sportiness bonus. This gives it an engineering score of 23.0.
Visual:
-Legal: 4/5, this one’s also missing wipers.
-Engineering: 5/5 No front grill 
-Sensei Score: 2/3 Although I feel like it could use some plastic or other detail on the side of the car, I really like the overall look. The colored plastic bumpers are a weird choice- while the Crusoe engineers have never seen anything like it before and they’re worried they will fade in the sun, I like it. The front design is sleek and you can tell it’s rear-engined. There’s also actually a backwards vent on both sides, but I’ll be generous and assume it’s engine air intake or something.
-Poll score: 1.5 (#8) This one didn’t grab people at the polls, unfortunately.
-Total visual score: 12.5
Total score: 35.5
A note on the Strawpoll votes: The Reynard seemingly passed the Crusoe RR, but the Crusoe was actually the first to get 4 votes. Strawpoll just organizes them alphabetically or something. I’m also not sure what this means for the Brasilia/Iota, but I can’t be bothered to sort it out since the 0.5 point won’t make a difference anyway.
Brasilia @Marcus_gt500 33.4
Bonus 1.2 @pcmoreno 35.5
Nakamoto NM5 @jantheman9999 37.4
Libra @titleguy1 40.0
Reynard 1200 @Jaimz 44.4
Cabybara @HighOctaneLove 45.2
Iota @S31 46.0
Crusoe RR @Marv666 49.4
5 Likes
Awesome reviews!
This was quite a fun challenge. I’m surprised with some of the outcomes but not surprised on being surprised since I assume most of the people here are more auto-knowledged than me. Forgetting the wipers makes me want to bang my hand against a wall 
Things I’m surprised:
- I was the only one to use a I4. I associate boxers with premium cars, so it went out the window quite soon for me.
- My car is the most expensive. (I really suck at keeping a budget) But I’m happy to have the lowest maintenance cost.
- I was not last!
@SenseiB12 - Thanks for a fun little challenge. Totally surprised to be so high and found myself just behind @HighOctaneLove…again!
Gz to Marv666 on a well deserved win.
1 Like
it’s equipped with a premium interior and a luxury cassette system (was this a mis-click?
no it wasn’t. I was told to score high desirability in family, city and fun. That’s just what I looked for.
There’s enough of a front grill to cool a honda civic
Half are actually closed and just for looks, the other half have the radiator, with an actual radiator fixture.
The rear vents are aggressive for an “ordinary” car
they are pulled straigh from the 70s car and are for the intake as the front is used only for the radiator
Can’t say I didn’t expected the results. That’s what happens when I make the entire car alone.
2 Likes
Ooh nice! Thanks everyone! Lovely to see my RR by Autodelta won. Bytheway, I stole the the rather uninspired name from this (similar era) car:
Indeed XD, I try to go with hypereutectic cast pistons whenever I can. Purely as I feel I would want a car to have as little emissions as possible, just as I usually go for good fuel economy. And I believe I had to go with the forged crank and conrods to achieve enough revs. As I thought I would be one of the few with such a small engine I wanted to give extra emphasis on the rev range to underline the sportiness.
The no ABS was actually a move to get higher scores for the classes (I guess they valued costs more), and as ABS was a luxury option in that time I felt a small budget car could definitely do without.
Personally I’m not a big fan of oversteer prone cars, or hard suspension, but I felt those did better for a sporty RR car. So I didn’t do too much on getting the car more understeered.
Oh and the fake spoiler was intentional, my 1983 Mitsubishi Galant has a foamlike fake spoiler and it really gives the car a tougher look. I actually used a bumper fixture to get that spoiler without having to deal with aero on the car.
Actually in the earlier days boxer engines where quite common on budget cars and family cars. To name a few:
- Citroën 2CV, GS, Ami
- Alfa Romeo Alfasud, 33, 145,
- Subaru Leone, Impreza,
- VW Beetle.
Although don’t pin me on all those cars actually having “boxers”, they can also be flat/180 degree V engines. But that’s similar on the outside and mainly differs in the crank design I believe.
5 Likes
Thanks for these “deep” reviews
Again so close and so far to victory!! Well done to Marv666!!
For the styling, plastic bumpers were a thing in the 80’s and 90’s for eco hatches ( Renault 5/Twingo/Clio, Peugeot 205 etc…) so it was a no question move.
Then I wanted to “replicate” the front end of a 1989 Clio and the rear well I had a P80 Starlet GT in mind!
For a long time I had the manual installed for better fuel mileage but I figured out customers prefered autobox despite the worse fuel economy… I was frustrated to see penalty on turbos so I did my best with MPFI!
About the brakes, I saw Killrob do the same trick in its last Let’s play and since it’s an economy car, It didn’t sound wrong to me even if in the 80’s/90’s you say to a customer his future car has 4 drums all around, he’ll get away before you finish your sentence 
The tyres needed to be this low profile otherwise, this would be undrivable… And it was on Beam:rofl:
Thanks for this out of comfort challenge!!
Will Marv666 consider continue this challenge?
2 Likes
I would need some time to get it set up, but I’m quite interested in hosting a challenge.
2 Likes
Yeah, I don’t know the usual etiquette for challenges, but “winner hosts the next one” works fine with me. Got a theme in mind?
Actually in the earlier days boxer engines where quite common on budget cars and family cars. To name a few:
Citroën 2CV, GS, Ami
Alfa Romeo Alfasud, 33, 145,
Subaru Leone, Impreza,
VW Beetle.
@Marv666
It’s entirely my fault that I associate boxer with Porsche, but I suppose there’s quite some engine guides out there on Steam labelling Boxers as premium engines. I’m glad I could learn from this, so thanks.
From that list, the beetle was the only one I knew had a rear placed engine, as my granddad had one in the 80’s. I was lazy to do some research though as I decided to join in the fun just 2 days before the deadline.
@SenseiB12
I would like to suggest, if the others also agree, that you publish these cars as Crusoe mods on beamNG(it’s actually not difficult to make one mod with several cars). I’m very curious to see how differently they feel.
1 Like
Fun contest and the results were fairly close between the cars. Thanks!
It has been silent for almost 2 weeks, but I want to let you all know I’m currently working on the ADC2 challenge. As I don’t have any experience in hosting a challenge and as I don’t know how much free time I have to continue, I predict it will take 2 weeks at most to get a decent challenge written up. It’s a bit long, but I don’t want to rush anything to avoid mistakes.
I have already cleared the idea with @SenseiB12, but I won’t give out any details yet.
4 Likes