Actually forgot to mention that in the OP, but it is weighted to some degree for each category. There are only a few stats that AREN’T weighted (Loudness, required cooling, emissions).
Close to full up on Economy engines. Get your submissions in if you want in on that action!
Okay, I’ve decided, once again with the quirky (almost self-sabotaging) decisions, I’ll enter the engine from Armada’s attempt to stay with the hip crowd… a turbo hot hatch engine (which isn’t designed for all out racing and, being in the hot hatch market, will need to remain somewhat practical!)
Another round of checks done. 2 Economy slots left, 4 Balanced slots left, and 7 Sporty slots left.
This didn’t occur to me beforehand, but not having custom-designed cars to show off is really making for a much quieter thread.
In the interest of posting something for people to look at that doesn’t involve excessive spoilers, here’s the torque and power curves of the Sprite LS Turbo, sans units:
Intresting. Maybe I will do something.
Thanks, Packbat. I was wondering if someone might tackle that problem. 
I don’t remember what precisely I did to make the game display the chart without the numbers - I think it involved closing and reopening the graphs panel in the engine testing tab.
I would have shown the economy/boost curve, too, but for some reason the boost curve was missing.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to compete in this competition. My PC’s GPU died just a couple days before the competition and it won’t be replaced until at least the end on June, probably the end of July.
I’m suddenly getting this image of a card burning up and releasing smoke, while screaming like R2D2 when he’s been shot…
(does the mobo have onboard video? if so, yank the card and plug in to the onboard. Automation will run on almost any video card… 
)
[quote=“VicVictory”]
I’m suddenly getting this image of a card burning up and releasing smoke, while screaming like R2D2 when he’s been shot…
(does the mobo have onboard video? if so, yank the card and plug in to the onboard. Automation will run on almost any video card… )[/quote]
The onboard graphics is so shitty that it isn’t even worth it to attempt to run Automation on it.
[quote=“VicVictory”]I’m suddenly getting this image of a card burning up and releasing smoke, while screaming like R2D2 when he’s been shot…
[/quote]
Considering that I’ve been playing the classic X-Wing Starfighter (recently rebundled and repatched on Steam), and recently got my R2 unit fried in the midst of a hairy dogfight, this image is particularly vivid and therefore hilarious.
I myself thought about a way to do this and decided, I will not show you anything about the engine, so much as a brief for the car that the engine has been fit to!
Having well and truly shed their image as an also-ran muscle car wannabe maker from the UK by the late 70s, Armada wished to continue their visionary trend of More Powerful Than Reasonable sports cars for all kinds of (lower end) budgets. Struggling to keep their head above water after gambling heavily on developing multivalve OHC technology in smaller engines, Armada somehow persisted in their self-limiting attempt to balance carbs with boost for well over a decade.
By the early 80s, a new market was capturing mass appeal: the practical but sporty, compact but family-friendly Hot Hatch sector, popularised by the Golf GTi. This represented a big gap and therefore big opportunity for Armada, who were desperate to capitalise on their investment which sputtered slightly when the Armada Talon, with its 200hp 18v SOHC turbo i6, attained a cult following, but while ridiculously quick, its extreme hardcore driver status scared many customers off.
Enter the Armada Fore:
Every bit the hot hatch, with its FF drivetrain, perky turbo 1.6L i4, MacPherson front and torsion beam rear, seating 5 with a sizeable boot, but as it was designed to be a Golf beater (the Golf GTi Mk.1 engine eventually put out a fairly hefty 160hp), it had more power. This was a car that wouldn’t burn a hole in your wallet, wouldn’t chug an oil field dry, yet managed the 0-100km/h in under 8 seconds. Would it stack up and become one of Armada’s mainstays? Only time would tell.
I’m unsure if I want to enter this or not in spite of having 3 engines that could fit for every category.
I guess since, well it’s probably been said already about how for one, while it’s something for an engine to be economical, problem being just how it’ll perform in actual testing with a vehicle.
Not to mention I’m trying to find a path of highest bhp while keeping overall costs down, while I’m probably making what I could (then again every time I do, I see what Strop managing to do better than me), I’m trying to do so while keeping the engine N/A and on carbs given the price jack when using MFI.
Almost makes me wish there’s a community challenge in the very late 80s or early 90s to play around with even SPFI but that’s just me rambling. I may just submit to see how (baddly) I’ll stack up, then again last time I entered a challenge, I managed to finish far higher than expected because I just decided to ‘be myself’, or rather what my company would put out.
We’ll see. Interesting challenge none the less, if nothing else, gives me some more reasons to keep experimenting (even though been doing just that when I can).
Just as a quick response, rossriders, it’s fairly easy to make a turbo carb engine with these regulations that tops 200bhp without going completely nuts on the sliders nor breaks the engine, but that’s not what I’ve done: I’ve also just put out something my other company would have done. I don’t expect it to do that well.
Using NA will improve responsiveness, costs and reliability but obviously lose a lot of potential HP. I honestly don’t know how it’ll balance vs turbo.
Are open beta engines compatible with this challenge?
Looking at the changelog, I don’t see anything specifically affecting I4s - it might work, but it might not.
There are a few changes with the “flow”, namely the ability to change the year within a family.
That might cause problems.
I also haven’t switched over to the open beta yet. I didn’t have the exact date of it starting, and it was a gamble on my part to open this contest.
I will be shortening the deadline to 24 hours from now because I do not anticipate anyone else entering. Probably not that many people playing the old build right now, now that there is kind of a “craze” to play the open beta.
Belatedly: how terrible is it? I have an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 on my laptop, and the game is playable for me with minimal graphics settings … and nothing else running … especially if I reduce the resolution…
[quote=“strop”]Just as a quick response, rossriders, it’s fairly easy to make a turbo carb engine with these regulations that tops 200bhp without going completely nuts on the sliders nor breaks the engine, but that’s not what I’ve done: I’ve also just put out something my other company would have done. I don’t expect it to do that well.
Using NA will improve responsiveness, costs and reliability but obviously lose a lot of potential HP. I honestly don’t know how it’ll balance vs turbo.[/quote]
I know it’s possible, but maybe I’m being a bit too price sensitive since while I can make a turbo with such power without too much an issue, I guess I’m just trying to get maximum performance (be it with fuel economy, a balanced setup or outright power) while keeping the engines sensible.
Hell, with what I’m going to submit, I tried to run the Fuel Air mix as lean as I can. Like you did, I’m putting out an engine my company would build at that time (or rather reused from their varied days in Formula 3).
It’ll be interesting though, seeing if there’s even an attempt at balance…we’ll see.
Ah, damn, would have liked to enter this. I was away, so I don’t really have the time tonight to do it. Next one 
Interesting to see what people send in.
