The Mistral team calls this “Peasant spec” 
Yeah, but that pricetag and that name does give a lot of cars a run for their money in the desirability department.
The Mistral is also double the price 
At that point you can get a used Fatalita!
Considering that Promessa is Italian for “Promise”, it’s unsurprising that this car makes lots of those - and delivers on each one! In short, it’s a supercar condensed into something the size of a Cayman or Exige - and what the 4C should have been like from the start.
Review: 1988 Assoluto Crinale
"Ignore those who say don’t meet your heroes, they’re missing the point"
Thanks to @Deskyx for lending me the car!
11 Likes
1996 Assoluto Crinale
The success of the 1987 Crinale lead Assoluto to believe that such a category of very expensive ultra high performance machines not only boosts it’s corporate image, but is also a viable market as well. The 90s supercar boom and Assoluto’s recent Formula One victories also had the company in high spirits to take another shot at a top tier supercar. The 1996 Crinale is the product of that optimism and 90s unhingedness, featuring a stressed member engine construction, and what is essentially a detuned and enlarged Formula One block producing close to 600 horsepower.
Unfortunately by it’s release, the supercar boom had ended, and the cars struggled to find buyers. Less than stellar reviews complaining about the car’s unforgiving nature and incredible discomfort from the stressed member engine. But the biggest death kneel is that the car felt slower than it’s predecessor despite the factory claims of increased performance, due to a more difficult to manage powerband. Production ended with just 450 units produced as opposed to 1987’s 1300. However it has been vindicated over time, due to it’s Formula One derived V12, and rarer production numbers causing it to fetch much higher in auctions today.
450 Units Produced. New MSRP: $280,000
Engine
| Engine |
5.2 Liter F1 V12 60 Valve DOHC with Weber Marelli Electronic Fuel Injection |
|---|---|
| Bore X Stroke |
87.8 x 71.7 |
| Compression | 10.7:1 |
| Weight | 217 KG |
| Redline | 9000 RPM |
| Power | 597 HP @ 8100 RPM |
| Torque | 560 NM @ 7200 RPM |
| Transmission | 6 Speed Manual by Graziano with mechanical differential |
Chassis
| Length | 4560mm |
|---|---|
| Curb Weight |
1094 kg |
| Tires | F 225mm R 295mm High Performance Sports Tires |
| Brakes | F 325mm R 310mm unassisted Vented Discs |
| Material | Carbon Fiber Body Panels on Carbon Fiber Monocoque with steel subframes |
| Layout | Rear Mid Engine Rear Wheel Drive |
| Suspension | F & R Pushrod |
Performance Statistics
| Power to Weight |
544 HP Per Tonne |
|---|---|
| 0-60 | 2.9 Seconds |
| Top Speed |
205 MPH |
| 1/4 Mile |
10.38 @ 142 MPH |
| 250m cornering |
1.28 G @ 125.3 MPH |
| 60-0 | 94 ft |
| Nordeschleife | 7:27.13 |
| MRLS | 1:35.82 |
| Automation TT |
2:02.07 |
1997 Assoluto Crinale GT-1
The ever elusive Crinale GT-1 was made to compete in the top level of endurance sports car racing, however by time the car was ready, homoglation specials began to appear and dominate the competition. Deciding that the Crinale would be no match for these vehicles, Assoluto decided not to formally compete and instead refurbrished them as track cars sold to privateers. Only 5 cars were completed. These vehicles produced 800 horsepower out of the same engine, and delivered performance that will still shame a modern hypercar.
| Engine | Racing 5.2 Liter F1 V12 60 Valve DOHC with Weber Marelli Electronic Fuel Injection |
|---|---|
| Power |
795 HP @ 8700 RPM |
| Torque | 665 NM @ 7300 RPM |
| Redline | 10,000 RPM |
| Curb Weight |
1084 KG w/ full tank of gas and coolant |
| KM Sprint |
17.46 @ 185 MPH |
| 250m cornering |
1.82 G @ 149.4 MPH |
| Nordeschleife | 6:46.89 |
| MRLS |
1:27.23 |
| Automation TT |
1:51.42 |
11 Likes
Looks ace, goes like stink (especially the GT-1 version)… Major want. Also easily fills in a gap in the company’s history by serving as the equivalent of the F50. And I can say the same for the '94 Fatalita Rivoluzione, which feels very much like a 355.
Fastest 90’s car on here maybe?
(At least viable and not a senseless car)
1 Like
1994 Assoluto Fatalita Rivoluzione
The late eighties were a difficult time for Assoluto. The company remained stagnant after the death of the founder, and kept droning on producing the outdated and by now outmatched Fatalita. However under new management, and having enough of being threatened by the Saminda CZ6, Assoluto decided to bite back twice as hard with the new Fatalita, predicted to be the car to turn their fortunes. Dubbed the Rivoluzione to signify a complete departure from the outgoing model, the only thing this car carries over is the spirit. An all new 3.8 liter 40 valve V8 produces a staggering 410 horsepower, combined with a light weight of just over 1200 kilograms results in a real supercar. In addition build quality, comfort and reliability were significantly improved. The Fatalita represents a new era for the supercar, in performance, prestige, and technologies.
The Rivoluzione true to its name, was a game changer for the company. Over 10,000 units were produced, and Assoluto more than tripled it’s annual production. MSRP in 1994 is $80,000 and $87,000 for the Fatalita Cielo convertible.
| Engine |
3.8 liter Assoluto 90 degree V8 40 Valve DOHC with Weber Marelli Electronic Fuel Injection |
|---|---|
| Bore X Stroke |
86.2 x 83.6 |
| Compression | 10.7:1 |
| Weight | 175.1 KG |
| Redline | 8200RPM |
| Power | 404 HP @ 7400 RPM |
| Torque | 411 NM @ 6300 RPM |
| Transmission | 5 Speed Manual by Graziano with mechanical differential |
Chassis
| Length | 4120mm |
|---|---|
| Curb Weight |
1210 kg |
| Tires | F 205mm R 265mm High Performance Sports Tires |
| Brakes | F 325mm R 310mm Vented Discs with ABS |
| Material | Aluminum body panels on steel unibody |
| Layout | Rear Mid Engine Rear Wheel Drive |
| Suspension | F & R Double Wishbone |
Performance Statistics
| Power to Weight |
333 HP Per Tonne |
|---|---|
| 0-60 | 3.6 Seconds |
| Top Speed |
180 MPH |
| 1/4 Mile |
11.70 @ 122 MPH |
| 250m cornering |
1.23 G @ 122.8 MPH |
| 60-0 | 100 ft |
| Nordeschleife | 7:57.16 |
| MRLS | 1:42.82 |
| Automation TT |
2:08.83 |
1995 Assoluto Fatalita Rivoluzione RTS Corsa
Built to as a race ready kit for owners to participate in the one make Fatalita Trofeo racing series and as a base for privateer racing teams to build a GT endurance racer. The Fatalita RTS Corsa was allegedly sent to participate in a highly illegal trans Europe cannonball run in 1995 as part of its endurance testing. Assoluto completely and firmly denies such allegations.
The RTS Corsa kit retails for an additional $30,000 over the base price of the vehicle and includes a dry carbon fiber GT wing and front lip, racing stripped interior, racing suspension, and major engine tunes to produce 480 horsepower from the 3.8 liter V8 unit. The resulting vehicle weighs over 100 kg less and produces 70 more horsepower, resulting in a significantly improved power to weight ratio.
9 Likes
2015 Assoluto Crinale RTS 13 (.lua Edited Design Excercise)
Assoluto’s latest race car experiment based off the Crinale hypercar. The platform is meant to test the synergy and effectiveness of the KERS motor in racing and hard driving conditions, as well as a potential return to the 5 valve head last seen in the 90s Assoluto engines. While not road legal, the RTS 13 is sold to several individuals as a chance to participate in the development of the next generation cars based on their feedback and performance data obtained. Curiously Assoluto allowed owners to take their cars home, instead having a team of specialized mechanics available at any time to be called by appointment to a track day.
The new 60 valve KERS unit makes over 1100 horsepower without the assistance of turbochargers, and weight has been further shaved from the Crinale, resulting in an incredible power to weight ratio. With only 30 units produced, each car claims a hefty pricetag of $1,700,000, and includes lifetime on-call mechanic services and priority deliveries for future Assoluto models.
| Engine | Racing 7.1 Liter V12 60 Valve DOHC with Bosch Direct Fuel Injection and prototype 4th generation E-Diff |
|---|---|
| Power |
1130 HP @ 9600 RPM |
| Torque | 990 NM @ 7200 RPM |
| Redline | 10,300 RPM |
| Curb Weight |
1159 KG w/ full tank of gas and coolant |
| KM Sprint |
15.54 @ 214 MPH |
| 250m cornering |
1.98 G @ 155.8 MPH |
| Nordeschleife | 6:23.13 |
| MRLS |
1:22.54 |
| Automation TT |
1:46.15 |
10 Likes
That is pretty damn good. Same body as usual holding you back though, I think 
Sooo… AFAIK that is the fastest naturally aspirated “lore car” in the whole Automationverse, congratulations 
And the looks of it are not much less impressive than the performance.
You might be right, I too can not remember an NA car being that fast, but then again means he saves weight on the turbo and intercooling (Which explains that low weight for this body, I think) Besides, we all know that 1100-1300 hp is enough (and frankly more is unnecessary) for a lap time, and a 7.1 liter NA can do it with some elbow grease and work.
All in all this is a proper laptime, no doubt about that.
There does remain the problem that it’s impossible to fit a 7.1L V12 (you can get a 4L V12 in it at a stretch) into that body without some serious engine bay modification, which would probably be worth mentioning otherwise you can’t really reach a meaningful conclusion with comparison to non-lua edited Automation cars. As mentioned the only mid-engined bodies in the Kee Engine version that allow that are the Lambo bodies and none of them are suitable for this application for, er, various reasons.
Otherwise in essence I get why it was done this way: comparable outputs with necessary compensation for Automation lacking KERS systems (though a 7.1L V12 requires a valvetrain tech of close to +15 to allow both a redline of 10300rpm and max power 1130hp, but hey that’s what the FXXK does), plus the body that allows for the closest cosmetic replication of the FXXK. And this body is pretty good dynamically.
btw I don’t know what you guys are talking about ‘no NA car this fast’, are you ignoring the other +15 tech slider abuse cars? Because I can tell you now that you can get an NA car to do 6:12 around Nordschleife when you ramp it up to 15 if you know what I mean.)
8 Likes
Getting a fast lap time is really freaking easy when you cheat and edit the .lua, that’s a dick move not disclaiming that you did that either.
You’re deceiving people if you don’t disclaim that.
3 Likes
Getting a fast lap time is really freaking easy when you don’t cheat and edit the .lua too, that’s a dumb move not knowing that this car is made for replication purposes first than show off any sort of skill on my part.
In case you can’t tell by now, all the cars in this company are made to be counterparts, and I will edit LUAs to allow me to match their aesthetics. I’m not going to let an artificially small engine bay limit what bodies and engine configs to use, especially when I tested there is less than a second a difference on the Nurburgring with a .lua edited to allow bigger engine bays than a stock lua.
1 Like
The term “lore car” is the key here. Yes, it’s possible, but this monstrosity still exist in some dark, experimental, stat-whore-infested parts of the forum, not the daylight of the “civilised” part with brands 
(don’t treat it seriously though, in case of these track monsters the difference isn’t that big)
Oh, and IIRC it needed a 10+ litre V12 for that, am I right? And that adds a whole another level of unrealism 
Not to hijack the thread, but it’s time to have this out properly.
Does ‘lore car’ mean we’re advocating for lua edited cars to become commonplace? Yes, I agree, some of the bodies have some weird limitations (and others are just buggy), but as a game has parameters, I’m asking where you draw the line. Especially with the thread here being what it is, I already said I get it but what I didn’t already say was: forcing Automation cars to behave like real life cars because Automation won’t simulate them the way they behave in real life, by editing the .lua, so you can create a new benchmark continuum means you’re creating replicas of real cars… means you’re creating ‘real car replicas’. Not ‘Automation lore’ cars.
Wrong, a 7.7L V8, because I didn’t edit the engine bay of the body, which incidentally was the same one as seen above. But again, as mentioned, +15 tech slider abuse everywhere because it was purely a theoretical build to establish what the game allows us to do. Which brings me back to the original point: on the forums, Automation lore is all about attempting (with various degrees of success) to generate some kind of justification for what tech what companies have access too and therefore how much engineering time and production units seems somewhat reasonable to make a car. It’s a process that’s been evolving in this community as the game evolves, obviously, but suffice to say none of us would dare pretend that +15ing things is viable for most companies, well, except perhaps with one exception but we won’t speak of that here.
Deskyx isn’t aiming to follow those rules here. That’s fine, but the problem with that is that if he’s trying to make cars that replace real car benchmarks, editing .lua files renders the whole exercise meaningless because, again, and I don’t know how many times I’ll have to say this before it becomes clear, unless we simply allow modifying all the lua files, the comparison is going to be skewed. And you can imagine how messy that is going to get.
The best thing to do, as I already discussed with Deskyx, is see all hundreds of bodies that we’ll get access to in UE4, with a redone balance. It’s also an opportunity to approach the modellers and discuss which body should be able to do what. Maybe then we’ll be able to work with the engine bays we’re given.
Bitch, please, maybe you should take a reality check with the cars we’re dealing with here then read that again 
Also, in case you didn’t already realise, a 7.1L V12 that revs to 10300rpm, makes 1130hp, requires at least +15 tech on the valvetrain alone to not blow up the moment you rev it, and even then, that engine makes 33 reliability at maximal oversquare dimensions.
4 Likes
Indeed. I should have clarified the lua edited cars as just design exercises instead of benchmark cars. That was my mistake.
Also, the poor motor was undersquare for maximum weight savings, so it’s obviously not really a viable race car of any sort 
1 Like
rofl that takes me back to the days of min-maxxing for lap times and lap times alone… engine reliability 1.1, then undercooled to the minimum possible… 
like yeah sure those kind of engines would be like the qualifying engines in 80s F1, except sadly, we can’t run 6 bar of boost in Automation… now there’s an .lua edit I’d like to see…
1 Like
Oh wow… I feel like I accidentally brought the Spanish Inquisition on myself by accidentally saying that the guy next to me is ok, while everyone in the room except me realise that the guy is Satan…
So to clarify - when I wrote about the record I didn’t realise that the car was lua-edited. Therefore any arguments regarding the “legality” of such cars’ competition shouldn’t be aimed at me, as for me that is disqualification as well. I’m definitely not advocating for them - such impression is an effect of a mistake.
That is your approach. Some others, including me, might not go as in depth into these numbers and limitations and just create a somewhat believable story and imagination of a real company. Therefore my definition of a “lore car” allows for a +15-everything monster if it’s just some special one-off or something like that, not a regular product of a company, and has a financial base in other company’s activities - a real example of that could be Bugatti cars. But that’s the extreme.
About the reality check - that’s a race engine. Would you expect any more reasonable parameters from a real world race engine?
PS One more thing about the ET and PU - it’s hard to accurately judge them for now, as we have no reliable way to simulate the effects of modular design, parts sharing between models, engineering skills, factory equipment advancement, design outsourcing, licences and, in sandbox, production capacity and familiarity - and all those greatly affect what said number mean in reality.