Title says different 
1600 UTC = 1600 GMT
that was about three and a half hours ago (as of me having typed this)
the call seems right to me 
There is a LOT of competition!I hope I can make it at least a decent way in.
2 Likes
The time was correct. I submitted mine with a half hour to spare and was writing the lore when the entry window closed.
When I typed it, the title was wrong…doesnt matter now, it’s been corrected.
Reviews Round 1:
Rulebreakers:
Leonardo Aperto 125
Bin for exceeding maximum wheel size (16" wheels). If corrected, this car still needs a lot of work to be compettiive; it has 0.3 comfort, was the 3rd most expensive car, and, while straight line speed was not a major consideration, you’d want a sports car at this price to be quick, but it’s acceleration numbers were the worst of all entries.
Hinata Aurora Celeste 2200 GT
Bin for exceeding engine ET limits (90.9) and rear downforce (37.3 kg). A very good looking car; disproportionately large wheel/tire combo the only note I have on the styling. Compared to the top level competitors, this FF sports coupe is short on sportiness, has expensive running costs, and surprisingly low fuel economy.
Maartens Bristol 160 GT-R Mk.I
Bin for engine ET (92.8) and minimum sidewall (60 rear). Also a good looking car, unfortunate to be eliminated so early, but compared to the top contenders, it’s short on sportiness, has very poor comfort (6.4) not helped by the nearly unmuffled engine (50.4 loudness), and has surprisngly poor fuel efficiency
Kurskian Gala GSR
Bin for minimum sidewall (60 front and rear). Another pretty sharp looking car, and this one with no major faults, but a little short on sportiness, drivability, and fuel economy.
AZS Falco 2500s
Bin for minimum sidewall (60 rear). Really sad to see this car go so early; design-wise, it was my favorite of all entrants, both outside and in. While it would have been a top competitor if not for the rule issue, it does trail most of the competition in price, running costs, and reliability. Which make sense, given this car falls on the exotic end of the spectrum with it’s price, power, speed, MR layout, and appearance.
Pusilanime Amorous
Bin for engine displacement (2995cc) and downforce (2.63kg front). This quirky and endearing design is actually front-engine, despite it’s shape. It’s lacking sportiness and drivability, but is very comfortable, has cheap running costs, is quite reliable, and has pretty strong fuel economy considering it has the largest engine and an OHV valve train.
Eliminations:
Wells Raven
0 drivability. 11 sportiness. 0 comfort. Terminal oversteer at 45 mph. 8600 stiffness front swaybar. 9.4 stiffness front springs. -3 rear camber. 86 hp @ 5100 rpm redline from a 2 liter engine, despite DOHC valvetrain and internals allowing up to 7300 rpm. Cost is slightly above median, safety is on the low side, running costs are quite high.
RAUK PM3
0.3 comfort, 56.7 loudness engine. Still behind the top competitors in sportiness and driveability, and the worse in test on safety (18.5). Appearabce has some nice details, but the wheel/tire package is quite large for the size of the car, giving a bit of a off-roader stance.
Wanka Sport GTV6
0.4 comfort, and quite high running costs. The rest of the stat’s are fairly good though. The design is fairly bland, but the interior of this car is seriously excellent, among the best.
Bazard Tsunami
Just 1.5 comfort and well behind on sportiness and driveability as well. It’s cheap and powerful, but it’s not actually very quick and there are cheaper and better. Safety is among the worse in test and fuel economy is at the very bottom.
Yinzer Sport MK70
It’s very sporty, and drivability is strong too. But this falls apart everywhere else; styling is bare minimum, comfort is barely acceptable, running costs astronomically high, reliability and fuel economy poor.
Posite Spider 6
The most expensive entrant by a pretty wide margin provides race car performance and nothing else, with very minimal styling, weak comfort, poor safety, poor fuel economy, and horrible, horrible running costs, knocking on the door of $2,000.
Alira Carlisle 2.5
One of the biggest entrants here, with a big I6 hanging out behind the rear axle. It’s reliable, safe, and inexpensive, but falls behind in all other stats, and styling is very awkward.
Yamaguchi Hako
This is an odd duck; this RWD hatchback is the smallest of all entrants, just 120" long, but is stuffed full of I6, 2 liters worth, and sits very low and on really massive tires given the car’s footprint. Comfort is dismal (5) and is the only competitor to run a basic/basic interior, at odds with choice of a prestigious and large (for the car’s size) 2 liter I6. Styling is very basic and safety is low. On the positive side, sportiness is strong, running costs are low, reliability is good, and the dashboard looks nice.
Manda Yokai GT
This diminutive sports car is full of weird choices. Despite it’s tiny size, it’s among the most expensive entrants. Despite FWD, it has staggered tire widths, wider at the rear. Despite it’s 1.3 liter V6 bringing the least torque of all entrants, it has just a 3 speed manual. Despite FWD, it has a limited slip differential. It has no mufflers at all(83.3 loudness). Sportiness, drivability, and comfort are good, but reliability is quite poor.
Mayster Triumf
On paper, not a bad car, although pricey for what it offers. Styling really lets this car down, only the bare minimum was done.
Bogliq Bodkin Sport
The cheapest entry, it’s cheapness shines through, with weak stats across the board, most notably just 4.7 comfort. While you expect sacrifices at this price point, it is outclassed by the other budget options.
Hart Whipray 1800 GTE
A nice looking car, a realistically sportier variant of conventional European family car. While it brings adequate power, it’s sportiness is worst in test (16.3) and comfort is on the very edge of binworthy on it’s own (7.1). Safety and running costs are competitive, but the rest of the car underwhelms.
Tiffosi Zero BB
Strong sportiness, drivability, and comfort and held down by hefty running costs, poor reliability, a slightly high price tag, basic styling, and a transversely mounted boxer engine.
Transitstar Gnome ZL 2.5 Targa
A chariot dressed in spaceship clothes. The futuristic shape covers a very conservative machine, on a ladder frame with a solid rear axle. This benefits the owner in middle of the road purchase cost, low running costs, and good reliability. Unfortunately, styling is awkward, and sportiness and drivability are behind the pack.
DMS Rimini 1.8
A very middle of the road entry, coming near the median point in price and giving excellent comfort and drivability. Unfortunately, sportiness is low, and the styling really lets this one down as well.
Taube 3000 Straße
Quite a nice looking car, but it’s near the top of the range in price, and doesn’t offer much for it compared to the competition; sportiness is a touch weak, drivability as well, comfort low, running costs high, safety low.
Armor Motors Sunburst GT
The muscle car approach. Styling is pretty nice, although the size-maxed wheel/tire package gives this small car a truckish stance. Lots of power from a 2.8 liter I6 make this one of the fastest cars in a straight line, but and while nicely drivable, it’s not a sporty drive, nor a very comfortable one, with mediocre reliability as well.
Tevian Plethora 2.2
A very good looking coupe with strong comfort, drivability, safety, and cheap running costs, but weak reliability and among the very worst in sportiness (18.2). This is the basic pony car to a T: a very stylish and usable car, but not sporty enough for this crowd.
Decarlis 5 C 2500
This car is beautifully styled, outside, but especially inside, one of the very best. But it seems to have found the wrong competition, as it’s sportiness is very low, and it’s price quite high. Drivability and comfort and good, safety is above and beyond the competition, and power is plentiful, but it’s not the sports car we’re looking for here.
22 Likes
Did as expected, as the primitive plastic bucket it is. 
3 Likes
What I get for building a novelty car. GG ya’ll!
2 Likes
Fair enough - the trim I submitted was more head than heart and suffered for it. The bigger-engined trim, with its six-cylinder engine, would have been far more fun to drive, and not that much more expensive (with better comfort and only a slight drivability penalty to boot), but in all likelihood, it still wouldn’t have made the final cut, given that the finalists (whatever they are) looked just plain better. It would have stood a better chance of making the finals, though.
And why did so many of the entrants (including some of the ineligible ones) have so little comfort? I suspect it was at least partially due to overly stiff suspension tuning (on the springs, dampers, sway bars or any combination of the three), but I couldn’t stop laughing when I saw the writeup for the Wells Raven, which took such mistakes to comical extremes:
Regardless, I’m expecting that the rule breakers in Stage 1 will not make it to Stage 2.
1 Like
Wow!
Wasn’t in the eliminations but some of the Automation “big hitters” were…
Completely gobsmacked!!
Alternatively my car was missed… 
RIP! I guess going ALL AMERICAN wasn’t a good idea for this competition. Or I should have dropped some quality here and there and at least been really cheap, haha.
I am surprised how many cars seemed to ignore comfort as well, it’s a medium priority stat. When judging, I actually had to lower my expectations for what counts as an acceptable comfort level, as many cars fall below even the 9-ish comfort level I expected to be the lower bound.
1 Like
That is to say “too GT”! 
2 Likes
You know, I wasnt even worried about comfort. My downfall was racing my car around the default track in Beam 20+ laps trying to achieve the best lap times I could (with all of 85hp) lol. I wasnt trippin off of comfort…maybe I should have for this challenge.
I wasnt going to mention this here but since you re-posted it I’ll say this…
Regarding the engine internals being able to rev to 7300rpm but only achieving 5100 safely before the power curve falls off sharply, what am I doing wrong? I have no problem making a separate thread to ask this as not to de-rail the topic.
But I do thank @donutsnail for even mentioning it.
My only gripe is “Terminal oversteer over 45mph”…it drove great on the TRACK lol!!!
But thats not what they asked for…I get it.
A better valve-train (either a more expensive one or adding some quality points) is the main thing that prevents power falling off with RPM. The size of the bore also affects airflow and large bores tend to cause power loss at high RPM. For a given displacement, if you are encountering this, you can get more efficient use of your displacement by increasing the stroke and decreasing the bore so displacement remains the same.
1 Like
I suppose in retrospect I made a moderately expensive track car rather then an affordable sports car, I’m still chuffed I managed to not end up binned though. Hopefully I can make some improvements in part 2, I have some Ideas to make the car more interesting to look at, to make up for the weight that comfort might add.
EDIT: I was just looking at my build again, on my machine I read 42.3 loudness in the engine section. Is there somewhere else that has a different number?
Let me show you what I mean by this. You don’t need the engine to rev all the way out to 7300 RPM, but your engine has more to give even in it’s current tune, but you choked it with a 5100 rpm rev limit.
This is how your engine looks now.
Now below, see how the power curve looks with just a change in rev limit:
Much nicer. The power is now usable, since the engine doesn’t hit the rev limiter the moment it makes peak power. As far as valve float goes, looking at your torque peak, you have a decidely un-sporty cam profile, resulting in low torque peak, which helps with fuel economy and drivability, but is not ideal for a sporty car, and leads to valve float occurring at lower RPMs.
My mistake, considering I had 62.3 rather than 42.3, I think I made a typo on my notes. But, given the vehicle’s characteristics, the correction on engine loudness does not alter it’s elimination.
1 Like
Really sad I missed this - the 70s are by current jam, so many of these cars look great. I had three cars in the works - and more ideas - however, there was an outbreak of the rona at work, and I was the only one who could cover, (we need people in person).
At least I got to see some seriously sexy cars!
1 Like
Comparison: 1970 Affordable Sports Cars
Most of the competition comes in around $15,000 AMU. Let’s take a look:
Clockwise from left: Westpoolchestershireshire Shaguar 1600GTE: $14,900; Keika Kakute MkII: $15,400; Cambridge Kobold 1600 XE: $14,600, Regal Coati 1700 GTE: $14,700; PF Vyxen 1500: $14,600
Clockwise from left: Branson CS280 Rallye: $16,400, Midlands Io Sprint: $15,700; Courageux 1750s Corse: $16,200, Westland Romeo S1200: $15,000
In and around the $15,000 mark, there is no shortage or sporty options for the consumer on a budget.
Perhaps one of the most prototypical examples of the genre is provided by PF in the form of the Vyxen 1500. This diminutive FR sports car seats two in relative comfort, while still excellently drivable and fantastically sporty when the road gets twisty. It’s 1494cc twin-cam I4 makes just 84 hp @ 5600 rpm, but has sufficient midrange torque and motivates the car sufficiently. What isn’t prototypical about the Vyxen is it’s fuel economy: an incredible 32.5 MPG. While it’s styling is questionable in places, with uninspiring fascias and unusually massive badging, the PH Vyxen sets a high bar for the competition, especially given it’s $14,600 price.
The most established player in this field is the Keika Kakute MKII, which we’ve seen on the market in one form or another for more than a decade. This aluminum bodied, rear-engined machine brings 78.5 horsepower at 6300 RPM from it’s 1196cc inline four. The BERMAG powerplant may not be the strongest, but it’s impeccably reliable, and inexpensive and easy to service. Unfortunately though, compared to the PF, it’s not as engaging to drive, and the absence of a radio makes it less livable on a daily basis.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the 50s-era Keika is the futuristicaly styled Westland Romeo S1200. While we wouldn’t go as far as calling it pretty, it is nonetheless incredibly distinctive, and it’s interior is nicely styled. Despite it’s tall, blunt nose, it’s engine is acutally mid-mounted, a transverse 1238cc boxer four making 90hp, moving the car along a bit quicker than the PF and Keika. This incredibly unusual drivetrain layout brings higher service costs and difficulty in accessing the engine for maintenance; thankfully, the engine itslef is incredibly cheap to run. Also unusual in this design is the extreme stagger, 45mm difference front to rear. While the lightweight nose and 130 width tires make the car easy to drive around town, the car is less engaging to drive than the PF and experiences some unusual behavior at it’s cornering limits.
Westland Romeo interior.
Another car with an unexpected drivetrain layout is the Régal Coati 1700 GTE. Despite it’s incredibly long nose and massive front overhang, it keeps it’s 1965cc boxer four all the way at the back, where it produces 111 hp. Aside from impressive safety ratings and equal acceleration figures, the Coati is outclassed by the Westland, and costs only $300 less.
The last rear-engined car in this test is the Courageux 1750s Corse. Quite a nice looking car with a very nicely styled interior that seats 4, unlike the majority of the vehicles on offer. While it’s a strong alternative for someone in need of a bit more practicality, it doesn’t have the sportiness of the top contenders here, and suffers from poor reliability and running costs.
Courageux 1750s Corse interior
Two other cars in the same boat are the Branson CS280 Rallye and the Cambridge Kobold 1600 XE. The Branson brings good looks and 4 seats to the table, as well as a boat load of engine: a 2792cc I6 producing 160 hp, which is also impressively reliable. Acelleration figures are stellar, but unfortunately, the car’s driving dynamics are subpar and comfort is poor. More compelling is the Cambridge Kobold. A sporting variant of a family car, it costs $1600 and $1800 less than the Courageux and Branson respectively, and is a bit more fun to drive, despite being short on acceleration with it’s 94hp pushrod I4. Of the 4 seat options, we think the Cambridge is the best value for your money, but as a dedicated sports car, it still falls a bit behind curve.
Speaking of dedicated sports cars, the Westpoolchestershireshire Shaguar 1600GTE is a mouthfull with very sporting intentions. It’s just that bit more engaging to drive than the PF Vyxen, but not without cost; it’s less comfortable, not as nice to drive around town, and costs a small amount more. While it’s 1598cc flat four produces 18 hp more than the PF, it doesn’t feel much quicker. It is, however, a nicer car to look at.
But even nicer is the Midlands IO Sprint. While it costs a little more than the PF and the 1600GTE, and is maybe just a touch less fun, it rewards in a much, much more comfortable drive, more power from it’s 1600cc twin cam I4 (116hp), and impressive safety for it’s size. It’s also downright fast, and is beautifully styled inside and out, with a tartan interior and a downright menacing presence outside. For a car in this price range, we think it’s can’t be topped.
Midlands IO Sprint interior
But, can a budget option tip the scales?
L to R: FATI 69 1.3 SMS: $12,600; Pegas 111: $12,000; Joyeux 1600 Décopotable MKIII: $11,600
These three options come in around $12,000 and look to take some sales away from the more expensive competition.
the Joyeux is the most affordable car here, due in part to it’s old fashoined ladder frame construction. It’s quite cute to look at, and 102hp from it’s 1600cc I4 sounds good on paper, but unfortunately, acceleration is quite slow, and driving dynamics are a long ways off from the pricier competition. It’s quite comfortable and cheap to run too, so we highly recommend it for someone more in search of a cute roadster than a sporty one.
The Pegas 111 can hardly be described as cute. It’s heavily upright greenhouse and long rear overhang with a fastback shape make this tiny car look very, very stubby and awkward. Despite the long fastback roof, this FWD machine seats just two, and is powered by a very unusual engine layout, an inline 5. Rather large for it’s price and size, the 1991cc engine produces a very stout 114hp and 114 lbft of torque, giving this car impressive acceleration. In the corners, it’s not as enjoyable as most of the more expensive options; perhaps due to it’s rear log axle, it has a propensity to swap ends in low-speed cornering maneuvers, and feels quite nervous at higher speeds still. Unfortunately it is quite uncomfortable as well, and it’s running costs seem more fit for a more expensive car. All in all, if you can get past it’s looks and it’s unproven engine layout, it’s actually a quite compelling package. However in our opinion, that’s asking quite a bit.
The FATI is also quite compact and FWD, but with a more practical interior seating for 4, and very attractive, sporty looks. It’s 1299cc I4 produces 101 hp while also proving very cheap to run. On paper, we were quite impressed with it, but when we took it on the road, we found it’s comfort levels simply unbearable.
What about more expensive alternatives?
L to R: Cabreras 200 Sprint: $17,200; Zephorus Cortet: $20,800; Tristella Oscen 240GTS: $18,200
Are these more upmarket models worth the increase in price? On paper, the Cabreras 200 Sprint seems like you aren’t getting much for your extra money, with an 1300cc flat four with similar power and acceleration figures as the PF. But a quick look under the skin shows that this machine shows it’s racing hertiage with it’s spaceframe chassis and tested-and-true solid rear axle. Looking over the skin too impresses; a clean, simple design that’s attractive, yet restrained. The car’s driving dynamics are stellar; a very sporty driver that doesn’t sacrifice around town ease. scoring near top marks in both factors, and scoring well in reliability testing as well. So what’s the catch? Aside from the hefty price, the car clearly prioritizes the drive over the driver; the cramped interior offers precious little comfort, and safety is suspect. Depending on your priorities, though, those sacrifices might be worth it.
For $1,000 more, though, you can get yourself a slice of Italian exotica: the Tristella Oscen 240GTS. With 2413ccs of V6 mounted just ahead of the driver making 155 hp, the Tristella blows away the competition in almost all of our measured performance tests. It’s no straight line specialist either; every time we grabbed the keys for a test run through the mountains, a scramble for the Tristella’s keys occurred; it’s untouched in driving fun. Contrary to some stereotypes, it’s also among the most reliable and safe cars here. Comfort is good too, in a exquisitely designed interior. While it does take a little bit of extra effort driving around town, we coudln’t find major anything to fault the Tristella for. Aside from it’s price, that is, a cool $2,500 more than the current benchmark Midlands.
Tristella Oscen 240GTS interior
Finally the Zephorus Comet. Costing another $2,600 more than the Tristella, it’s a more livable alternative with 4 seats and excellent around town drivability and good comfort. Unfortunately though, reliability, fuel economy, and running costs are all poor, which it’s excellent styling and strong performance can’t overcome, especially not at the price.
Final Thoughts
After testing and discussion, a few cars stood out in our minds as top choices.
For a mere $14,600, the PF Vyxen is a very impressive machine. Stylistically, it falls short of many of it’s competitors, but once behind the wheel, the Vyxen does everything you hope a sports car would and more, while returning fuel economy above and beyond even typical econmy cars. If style and speed aren’t high on your priorities, but an unadulterated driving experience is, the PF Vyxen makes a compelling argument.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Tristella Oscen 240GTS doesn’t sacrifice style or speed in delivering it’s stellar driving experience. It’s immense performance, stellar comfort, and effortless style make a strong argument, although, at this price, it’s argument might be as a compelling budget offering against more exotic machinery, as $18,200 is pushing the boundaries on what we can honestly call an affordable sports car.
The goldilocks between these two, then, is the Midlands IO Sprint. For $15,700, you get a machine that’s nearly as sporty as the other two to drive, but with more comfort than either, and arguably, more style too. It’s pretty quick too. All in all, it’s our pick in this test.
Congrats to @Portalkat42, the Midlands IO Sprint is the winner of part 1. Congrats as well to @Xepy for an incredibly close second, and to @Jaimz for a surprising third.
Keep an eye out for Part 2 coming up, everyone who participated in part 1 will be eligible for Part 2. DO NOT make any changes to your model or engine family, Part 2 will require that you are making a clone of your first submission.
28 Likes
Low on comfort, in my case, because RAUK. Early models are supposed to be primitive and only have light weight as a priority, and I am rarely changing what I have in my lore to fit competitions better. I was in doubt if I should enter at all, but I thought why not?
2 Likes