That would make a lot of sense, I just went with the pushrod 3 cyl, with cast pistons and a single eco carb because I thought it’d be funny to see if it comes close to anything
1 Like
Oh 
I forgot about the added bonus 
1 Like
I am not exactly surprised mine was the only boxer. I am surprised that I’m above-average for economy despite powering my 2.1L boxer-6 to (I think?) the fastest time. I felt like I needed to at least provide some kind of engine punch (pun not intended) if I was going to go for the city car body type.
Probably lost on price because I did more maxing than minning, IYSWIM 
But I’ve clearly not embarrassed myself. Yay!
Love this challenge and hope we get more along these lines 
I used overhead cam, 4 valve, 4 barrel carb. 1.5 l 3-cylinder, 55 hp
The First Round
You have your technical documents ready as three men enter the shed near a large, newly constructed shell of a factory, paid by the state of course. Three men enter the room. Peter, the National Head of Accounting. Gregory, current figurehead of the People’s Parliment, architect of the current new car production laws, notoriously reckless driver, and war hero. Finally after a small delay, Charles, the National Head of Engineering enters the room, simply asking “what do you have to show for us”. You start shuffling through designs your Junior Engineers have submitted.
Starting off with the design sent in by @mgobla. The Deducia Economy
You: This is the first design my engineers sent me.
G: What is that abomination of a color!
You: We are engineers, not artists sir, but the fiberglass panels tend to come out that way. You can paint over it if you don’t like it.
C: Fiberglass? A bit questionable, but I’m listening.
You: I think you’ll find the economy ratings to be more than sufficient. A whopping effective 55 MPG when I take your gasoline standards into account.
P: Far more than sufficient. How much do you expect this project to cost?
You: A fair amount. Nothing crazy, but it is worth noting. The best part about the fiber panels is that the people can make their panels in their villages if the proper requisitions are made, great for dispersed production.
P: Yes, but we have the steel presses for the chassis HERE, retorts Peter. My estimates show that each car will be about $20,000.
G: This is nice and all, but how fast can this thing go?
You: Fast enough to get you out of a bind. She’s powered by a very square 86mm Inline 3. The front brakes are vented, and like to lock first though. We got her around the testing track in 2:50, but the driver was complaining about back problems. It is a 2+2 by the way.
C: I can see why, these dampers are way too hard… and what’s this, a calculated roll angle of fourteen… is that a decimal? One point four degrees? My god. That sounds painful.
G: Besides those points, this seems like a very good candidate for adoption.
P: The production cost is high, but it’s worth it for our refineries.
C: I’m still skeptical of the springs and the panels, but it seems okay, what do we have next?
Passes to round 2.
Next on the list, you present the concept made by @FitRS. The Katsuro Archan
You: Here’s the next concept I have, this one is fiberglass, but we painted it. She holds a very oversquare I4. This one is 33 adjusted MPG.
C: Interesting. Not as good as the last one, but it still is a respectable value.
P: What about the cost to manufacture?
You: We estimate around $14,900, so it’s a quarter the price of the last one.
P: That seems a bit high for my liking.
G: How fast is it?
You: It got around the track in 2:55.
C: Wait a second… i’m looking at the proposed torque curve for this engine, why does it look so similar to a naturally aspirated engine?
You: Well, there IS a turbo in there, and it gives “an amount” of boost, but you need highly sensitive tools to tell.
C: No.
You: Why?
C: No, that’s why. We aren’t using a turbine as an excuse for a muffler, it’s not even a good muffler next!
OOC: You did use a turbo, but there was also 
. .01 BAR spooling at 3.7k RPM does not work.
Does not proceed to round 2.
C: Okay, what’s next?
You: Well, next we have @Jaimz with the FM Street
C: Is that a lip on there?
You: Yes, it is. It reduces the drag.
C: I know what a lip is for.
P: What’s the estimated cost here?
You: Well, each car is about $14,200, and they should get a bit above 31 MPG. This one does have corrosion alloyed steel panels, so that’s part of the cost.
P: Unfortunate, could’ve cut costs there, though I suppose it’s good for the people to not be driving rust buckets.
G: All they have to do is keep the paint on the car to deal with rust. How fast is this?
You: She got around the track in 2:45, so a good deal faster than what I’ve shown you thus far. She’s got some power behind her. Some of that is siphoned off by the power steering though.
G: I like it, what’s inside?
You: Inline 4, ecocarb a bit undersquare with forged pistons, and cast everything else.
C: Uh…
G: No, what’s INSIDE.
You: Oh, you mean the seats and such? A reasonably posh interior, with a good cassette player and radio, as well as cutting edge safety.
G: Hmm…
C: That’s expensive though. The forges won’t be cheap either.
P: Indeed.
G: It sounds interesting, but what else do you have?
OOC: It’s not shown, but forged internals are a rather massive investment. The interior is also a bit overspeced for a shitbox in every possible way, most entries are basic safety. It’s a decent car, but not “the peoples” car.
Barely doesn’t make it to round 2.
You: Okay, here’s one from @VicVictory. He called it the Nuvia Griego 1800T.
G: I don’t like the name already. Sounds too Fruinian.
You: Well, she’s a pretty decent design. Five seater, with an Inline 4, and the usual suspension setup.
G: How fast is she?
You: She got a 2:40. She’s got 110 horses at the flywheel.
G: Quick.
P: What are the numbers?
You: 23 MPG on regular gas.
P: Oof… compared to the other concepts…
You: She is pretty cheap to make though, only 12,100!
P: Fair enough.
C: You know, if this was geared better, I bet I could get it to go to 25 MPG, but alas, it’s not the case. Those tires look huge too, tone them down and put the right compound on, and it would be great. It’s a no from me.
P: I’m afraid I must agree.
G: Next!
OOC: There were quite a few small mistakes that added up to a big 
. The eco could have been improved in a variety of ways. The carb was above stociometric, the tires were wide, and the wrong compound for a shitbox was used. Too much sport, not enough eco. I liked the power you were able to pull off on the engine, but it won’t work here.
Does not make it to round 2.
You: Okay, next on the list is from… @reeve509 who forgot to put his name on the blueprint… (He’s lucky I just caught that now after I wrote this up… saved from the )
G: What’s this one then?
You: This one’s quite a lot like the last one I showed you. She’s more fuel efficient, she runs on the correct fuel, she’s just 1k more expensive, and has about the same power:
G: What’s inside this one, how fast? You know the drill.
You: She’s got a basic seating arrangement, no radio on this one.
G: Fair enough.
C: She’s got a bit of a tight roll angle, 3.4 degrees I’d guess.
G: Less roll, more power to get around the corners!
C: Eh… sure, that’s how it works.
P: By more fuel efficent, what did you mean?
You: She’s got a rated fuel eco of 33.
P: Pretty reasonable.
You: What do you think of this one?
G: Yes.
C: Yes
P: Why not? We’ll fast track this one to a concept. What else do we have?
Passes to round 2 (you got lucky).
You: Okay, next we have a car from @HighOctaneLove. With the Bogliq Bugle.
G: I have a feeling that i’m going to like this one.
P: I have a feeling i’m not.
You: Okay, this is the next blueprint I have. A rear wheel drive, full steel five seat machine with a pushrod I6 and a few webbers.
C: Excuse me, what?
You: DCOE?
C: I got that…
P: I thought I wouldn’t like it…
G: Go on…
You: Well, she scores a 21 on the MPG test, but she’s been cheapened up by using a solid axle rear, along with the usual MacPhersons. She’s only 12,500 to make!
C: Hah, no.
P: With that economy? No way!
G: Yes!
C&P: Absolutely not!
G: Fine, but I’m taking the concept anyways.
OOC: This car simply can’t compete in terms of fuel economy. It’s more or less a budget premium car.
Does not make it to round 2.
You: Okay, moving onto @ShinyBat. With the Pipi Downtown Turbo.
G: This one looks boring.
P: It’s perfect. Boring is cheap
You: Well, this proposal is fiberglass, with a Boxer 6 and twin eco carb. She scores a 35 MPG.
C: That’s a very interesting idea you have there. I was not expecting a boxer concept…
P: How much will this cost us?
You: About 16,400 per car.
P: It’s a bit up there.
C: Well, it should be with the fiberglass panels, and the boxer in there.
G: How fast is she?
You: This is actually my fastest concept and scored 2:38 on the test track.
G: Impressive!
C: I’ve noticed some… unique features about this concept. Front tires bigger than the rear, full clad tray, the spoiler actually gives downforce…
G: So?
P: It’s over-engineered.
C: Well, yes, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen before or toyed around with. This thing will want to oversteer like crazy, are we sure we want the people to have this?
G: Yes.
P: Eh, I’ll leave that to your judgement.
C: I am not opposed.
Passes to round 2.
You: Okay, next I have @Xoury’s concept.
G: What the hell is that?
C: That’s what’s colloquially referred to as a “wagon” sir.
You: This one is a pretty neat concept. She scored a 27 on the adjusted fuel eco test. She was pretty slow on the track though at almost 3 full minutes.
C: Am I reading this right? Transverse front solid axle?
You: Yes.
C: With the torison beam rear?
You: Yes.
P: How much does this cost?
You: Just $8,170.
P: What!?!
C: Well, she is just a body on frame design, it’s bound to be cheap.
G: This is not the car we’re looking for.
C: I’d disagree, this is the car we’re looking for, it’s just for the wrong task.
OOC: This one was really interesting, and I liked it. Doesn’t fit the job that’s required though. Too low eco.
Does not pass to round 2, instead, car will be re-purposed as a rural rescue services vehicle.
You: Next on my list is @Arn38fr with the Decarlis EC 30.
G: I like the shape of that one.
You: This is another fiber design. She scores 40 MPG, but she is using regular gas.
P: Good, and bad, go on…
You: She’ll cost us about 14,800 to make per car.
P: That’s a tiny bit pricy, but okay.
G: Speed, inside, go.
You: 2:50 on our track, standard four seat interior.
G: Pretty quick…
C: I see no reason to drop this one. Seems pretty bog standard.
P: I’d agree. The economy of these cars won’t hurt us much, and they are relatively cheap.
G: I’ll take one.
Passes to round 2.
You: Next on my list is @WALL, with the Futurama.
You pull out the blueprint.
C: Points at the blueprint. No.
You: I haven’t even started yet.
C: I don’t even need to see the details.
G: What?
P: I don’t understand either.
C: Look at these design specifications, every single part of this car needs to be designed down to the micrometer, and it still bottoms out. We aren’t doing this.
P: How much will it cost us though?
C: If I had to fathom a guess… three times the cost of the last car.
P: Okay, yeah, no.
G: Alright then, moving on!
OOC: Just because you can use quality sliders, does not mean all the quality sliders should be +5. Your car brought up the average price of all the cars by $2,000.
You: Okay, my last submission is from @CriticalSet9849 with a last second entry.
G: This one is very red.
C: That’s our default designing color. We can keep it, or we can scrap it, up to you… Oh, it’s a Coupe!
P: Specs please.
You: Okay, this one is another middle of the line car. She scored a 33 MPG on our test, but she needs regular gas. Expected unit costs are $15,400.
P: A little bit pricey, and the eco could be better.
C: I’d have to agree on that one.
G: You know the drill.
You: A 2:50 on the track, four seats, with a quite high spec interior package.
C: Yeah, if we stripped the car down a bit, I’d go for it, but as it stands, too posh.
G: Set this one aside for my collection.
P: It’s decent, but doesn’t quite cut it compared to the other concepts.
OOC: It’s a decent build for Automation as far as it’s concerned. It just doesn’t cut the mustard for what this contest asks for.
Does not pass to round 2.
That leaves…
@Arn38fr, @ShinyBat, @reeve509, and @mgobla for the last round of judgement!
@reeve509 as the only non-fiber entry, so that’s something I should note. I probably should’ve banned it at the beginning of the challenge, but yet here we are.
5 Likes
First off, nice review…wait what am I saying…it was awful because I got binned!!! 
Franklin Marshall stopped putting basic anything in when the tech became available. Standard is our basic.
The lip was for show…as is the rear lipped wing. 
And finally I used forged to help with the fuel economy.
And is the Pipi using rubberbands for tyres? Looks like it would deform the wheels if it hit a pothole! :rofl
2 Likes
The Pipi has some of the lowest profile tires I’ve seen on a '88 car.
2 Likes
you know, I had a feeling that cutting a v6 in half was a bad idea
2 Likes
I was very much on the fence on passing yours. If you were able to get the eco above the average, or close to it, you probably would win.
I mean you did say it must have a turbo with more than 0 boost… that’s what you got 
1 Like
Binned in the first round… Nice!!! 
Hey @VicVictory, since I’m hosting the instabin, I’ve got some XXXX Golds chillin’ in the esky for ya!
I’ll be drinking Bundaberg Ginger Beer and I’ve also got Cascade Apple Cider for anyone who’s been binned so far (that doesn’t want some XXXX, lol)
Party at my place… Woohoo!!! 
2 Likes
Party theme: Black eyes and instabins?
I went a bit nuts on the power because somehow, everyone else always squeezes an absolute assload of power into their ecoboxes like this. I’m not miffed about the bin, I never quite know what to expect when making something for a 3rd world market. I’m actually a little proud that I got that beast so powerful and so fast with such a restrictive turbo, a carb, and frankly less than an hour of tuning. lol
1 Like
For some reason I thought I put in steel rather than fibreglass, but I also can’t remember now. (checks files: yes, it is steel. I checked its stats with fibreglass and it goes to $21k in price, would’ve bumped to 37 MPG and 2:36.) I imagine in this particular IC context, steel vs fibreglass is (as alluded to) a decision of centralised vs decentralised production 
I came into this basically going “this needs to have some sort of sporting credibility even though it’s also an eco car” and figured that “hot hatch” - and in my lore “adaptation of existing hot hatch for this weird market” - was the way to go. In retrospect, went too far in minimising tyre profile to reduce weight - but it looks like my approach has given me a unique finalist, and I’m now 2-0 at avoiding the 
in all competitions so YAY!
Love how Xoury’s wagon got “repurposed as a rural rescue services vehicle”
Finals
A day later, you hear a broadcast over the radio.
WE HAVE MADE A SELECTION FOR THE NEW CAR OF THE PEOPLE! WE SHALL HAVE THE Decarlis, CREATED BY COMRADE @Arn38fr.
This decision was made based on the overall cost of the car. While it’s not the best fuel eco of the bunch, it is still very high, and the cost to manufacture it is relatively low.
If I had to place the final cars in order of top 4, I’d have to go with.
@mgobla for second place. The fuel economy can’t be beat, but the price is just too high, and the springs are questionable.
Third place is @ShinyBat. The car is the fastest car on the track, but the other features of the car seemed a bit… off. The tires are rubber bands. The fully clad undertray is a bit unusual, but there were no restrictions placed on trays. As a result, it did make it to the finals, but doesn’t quite clinch the top spot.
@reeve509 gets fourth place. This car was pretty good all around, but is just average among the top three cars. The use of steel is appreciated, and the car is overall a reasonable shitbox, it just didn’t quite cut the mustard, as a result of being THE average for eco.
Honorable mention to @Xoury. Couldn’t quite cut the mustard on the eco either, but it was a very interesting concept car.
I enjoyed doing this contest, and I hope you enjoyed participating in it.
Just a question now. Who should host the next round, and when should we do it?
- Have Admiral make another round.
- Have the winner, or the next in line make the next round.
- Don’t do another round until the next patch comes out.
0 voters
7 Likes
Can i come? I have a bottle of ginger ale and chips.
2 Likes
You’re good at this, Admiral. Definitely I’d say keep ownership of it for now. Perhaps in the future you could wind up as a sort of “executive director” of AEC, helping other people host it and keep in the spirit. And yes, I absolutely hope this concept lasts long enough for us to talk about AEC in these terms
Quite happy with third place, I think I went a little aggressive on “sporty” because I didn’t want to completely miss that part of the brief, but getting 35 MPG out of the fastest car in the field was pretty satisfying and allowed me to leap way over the hurdle of “didn’t mess up” I’m going to keep setting myself even though I’ve now leapt it comfortably in both challenges I’ve done
Congrats to @Arn38fr - thoroughly deserved winner.
2 Likes
Of course, all are welcome at The Instabin, which is wherever the competition after-party is located!!!
Congrats @Arn38fr on your win. Not only did your car have excellent stats, but you also did it with a lreal world sized body as well, instead of a tiny exercise in engineering exuberance!
Can’t wait for the next AEC; weird challenges are surprisingly fun to do… 
3 Likes
Already looking forward to pushing the frontier of cheapness with the next one hah
also, bundaberg is some seriously good stuff
2 Likes
I am a bit surprised to win this challenge. Especially since it was necessary to modify the engine 10 mintues before sending the file: the block and the cylinder head were made of aluminum …
I look forward to the next challenge!
Thank you @Admiral_Obvious
3 Likes
Here’s the draft for the next one.
1 Like