[quote=“Packbat”]
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]
HD 3200. Technically it could RUN automation, but no one in their right mind ever would run automation on it.
[quote=“nerd”]
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…
HD 3200. Technically it could RUN automation, but no one in their right mind ever would run automation on it.[/quote]
Thanks for pointing out that I’m insane. 
(last laptop had an HD3200. Current one has an HD4400. I don’t have a desktop or dedicated gaming computer. No room in my house or money in my wallet for that shizz.)
The competition is closed and the results are in!
Due to not filling all spots, I will only be reviewing the top engine in each category, and not selecting an “overall best”. Also, remember when looking at the different categories, they are graded on different scales. You cannot directly compare the scores between engines of different categories.
[size=125]Economy Engines[/size]
8th - Rolev Automotive - R16/82 16vE - 1.6L N/A 16v DOHC - “Tragic reliability matched only by tragic construction time.” - 0.5442 points
7th - Daiki Automotive - 4EE SO-20FCN - 1.9L N/A 16v SOHC - “Lovely torque curve can’t sweep high maintenance costs under the rug.” - 0.7761 points
6th - Ponni Motor Corporation (POMOCO) - WorkMoke WM4-4 - "1.6L N/A 16v SOHC - “It’s all about playing the averages. This one’s on the wrong side of every average.” - 0.8215 points
5th - Fuentes Motors - 82L4-83 - 1.8L N/A 12v SOHC - “The most powerful engine of the group. Unfortunately kind of expensive to build and keep up.” - 0.8256 points
4th - Žnoprešk Avto - ZL4.4-1611 16Eco - 1.6 N/A 16v SOHC - “The end times are nigh. Znopresk didn’t make the least powerful engine here.” - 0.8558 points
3rd - Infinity Motor - P-series 1P-FD - 1.7L N/A 8v OHV - “Cheap doesn’t always mean good economy. Also, the least powerful of the group.” - 0.8869 points
(Benchmark) - Ardent Motors - Cygnus Sparrow (Ph1) CE4-B - 1.6L N/A 8v OHV - “Just… wake me when it’s over.” - 0.9158 points
2nd - LHE - X4 M82-E63 - 1.7L N/A 8v OHV - “Even more boring than the Ardent. Thankfully a lot more efficient.” - 0.9985 points
And the ECONOMY winner is…
Northern Motor Company - Push-button 4R65 - 1.6L N/A 8v OHV - 1.0497 points
[size=125]Balanced Engines[/size]
7th - Toyoko Cars - TC4 S418i - 1.8 N/A 16v DOHC - “Toyoko decided that this engine needed to be held together by gold plated EVERYTHING.” - 0.8805 points
6th - SOFA - Económico Impulsar 1900 - 1.9L Turbo 16v DOHC - “Hit the gas and feel it… not go.” - 1.5253 points
5th - K’s Works - IL4C-18te - 1.8L Turbo 16v SOHC - “The most powerful by far. Also the most expensive to build and maintain, and very likely to fly apart.” - 1.6218 points
4th - GSI - Tsunami 4D16T - 1.6L Turbo 16v DOHC - “Turbo lag and high costs. Yum, my favorite.” - 1.6814 points
3rd - Seishido Motors - QGM16II 180SN1 - 1.8L N/A 16v SOHC - “A good all-arounder done in by production costs and mediocre efficiency.” - 1.6835 points
2nd - Kirk Automotive - 4A-Type 4A4B-T - 1.9L Turbo 16v DOHC - “TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQUE! (Plus insane service costs)” - 1.8106 points
And the BALANCED winner is…
Astana - Panther IN4 1.8L Standard - 1.8L N/A 16v DOHC - 1.8185 points
[size=125]Sporty Engines[/size]
4th - Baltazar Automóveis - Ekranoplan BOOSCHT - 1.8L Turbo 16v DOHC - “I’ve owned entire Baltazar cars cheaper than this engine. Then again, squeezing 300+ horsepower out of less than 2 liters.” - 0.2933 points
3rd - Bogliq Automotive - Beta 4 4B16E - 1.6L N/A 16v DOHC - “Even without a turbo, does a decent job of keeping up with the big boys.” - 0.7151 points
2nd - Armada Motors - Fore GTi Turbo - 1.6L Turbo 16v SOHC - “Kind of expensive to maintain, but always fun to drive with a motor that is on the edge of trying to kill you.” - 0.7184 points
and the SPORTY winner is …
PAW - Sprite LS - 1.8L N/A 8v SOHC - 0.8590 points
I’ll try to do the reviews over the next few days. Congrats to the winners!
Edit: Corrected PAW’s description. Not sure why Packbat said it was an LS Turbo if there’s no Turbo on it. 
Yay!!
Super cheap engine that is still decently economical FTW.
Perfect result from the BOOSCHT engine. 300+ hp from 1.9 litres in 1982, using fancy fuel injection methods, could only mean a terrible result
Thanks, Vic and sorry for not taking the challenge as seriously as I should have, but well, isn’t this all for fun?
Woot woot!
LHEs Economy line from the X4-Modular motors scored very well in this test.
300 hp out of less than 2 liters? In 1982? Impressive! (I really, really, really need to make that Hoon competition - there’s clearly a massive demand for it.)
I wish there had been more entrants, but I’m really happy to win my category - looking forward to seeing the review! Hopefully this will bring in some extra revenue for Packbat Auto Works from selling the engines directly. (I’ll go ahead and post the .lua files after the review for people who want to play with it.)
Just out of curiosity: would you mind calculating the scores for the winners in each of the other two categories? I’d love to see how well we hit our respective target markets.
300 hp was just the cheap version of the engine, still more than 3000$ though.
But that is nothing, because After doing that engine, me, trackpaduser and Jakgoe tried to find the most power within these regulations. The result? Around 590 hp 
Heh - I was, in fact, thinking “Impressive for an engine that’s meant to go in a consumer vehicle”.
[quote=“Packbat”]
Just out of curiosity: would you mind calculating the scores for the winners in each of the other two categories? I’d love to see how well we hit our respective target markets.[/quote]
Mine is definitively going to be rubish in the other categories 
I made the cheapest engine that I could with no negative quality, then I put a 4bbl and a 3-way cat so the fuel economy wasn’t too horrible.
The result is a 65hp all cast-iron OHV 1.6L engine, with around 19.5% efficiency.
So while it is very cheap to buy and run, it isn’t really a high performance engine at all.
…I think part of me assumes that my engine cannot possibly be the sportiest, and is trying to prove it by importing competition from the other categories. 
June 1982
At the Heart of the Matter
Best Inline-4’s of the Year
Small motors are becoming all the rage as of late. Once thought of as pre-war relics or odd power plants for niche cars and small imports, four cylinder motors have found their way into many mainstay models built on home turf. Spurred by competition going both ways, there has been significant innovation as of late.
For our 1982 Engine Showdown series, we scoured the planet for the very best 4-cylinder engines we could find. We didn’t want to get stuck on one flavor, either, so we chose models that represented different parts of the spectrum.
We’ll start with our middle-of-the-road selection. This 1825cc all-iron mill comes from Astana in the Netherlands. Its 16-valve DOHC configuration is pretty typical of European machines. One thing that is quite unusual, however, is its highly advanced, computer-controlled lean-burn carburetor. The mixture ratios obtained by Astana would make the Japanese blush. While this doesn’t sound like it makes for a thrilling ride, it does give bench efficiencies of almost 21%. Couple that with just shy of 97 horsepower, and the Astana Panther IN4 is a pretty slick machine.
It’s also a very reliable setup, with only the much-vaunted (and extremely expensive) Toyoko TC4 getting better marks on that front. Astana keeps the design simple, though, which helps keep cost down and engines rolling off the line. With the ability to make Panthers by the tens of thousands, Astana is poised to become a premier engine maker, at least in this category.
For the budget-minded, Canada’s Northern Motor Company offers up the Push-button 4R65. Coming in at 1603cc, NMC makes this a no-frills affair. The head and block are made of iron, and NMC uses cast components throughout the bottom end. 8 valves are actuated by pushrods. Similar to the Astana, the 4R65 uses a lean-burn carburetor, though the model they have chosen lacks the advanced control system. It’s not a barn burner of an engine; power output is a mere 62 horsepower. Yet without advanced technology or control systems, NMC still manages almost 20% bench efficiency.
Better yet, its design lends itself to reliability and easy maintenance. It also takes next to nothing for NMC to build, which should keep down overall costs. In a crowded field of economical engines, the NMC 4R65 definitely is a stand-out.
Finally, we’ve got an option for those who like the spicy side of life. While most manufacturers are playing with big turbos and aggressive cams on their high-performance fours, Packbat Auto Works of the USA is taking a more conservative approach. Yet the result isn’t disappointing. The 1798cc PAW Sprite LS motor is an all-iron 8v SOHC configuration. While the power numbers aren’t huge at 85.1 HP, there’s more than sufficient torque available throughout the entire RPM range.
Best of all, the Sprite LS is available on a couple light, inexpensive models from PAW. The fun factor that this motor brings to the table is quite nice, and it’s expected to last for many years. Of the three motors selected here, the Sprite is also the most reliable in testing.
No matter your preference, there’s something on the marketplace sure to fit the bill. Our recommendations are just so; we realize they may not be the best for every individual situation.
Great, my first engine win. Thanks VicVictory for hosting this challenge. Too bad the number of participants was not that high.
Maybe i should have sent in a “QGM16II 180[size=150]E[/size]N1” I got stuck on the idea of making it even more powerful than the old Achernar PS engine, and made it guzzle gas like a maniac. Yup. It had around 113 hp.
Beaten by pushrods… D: I wonder if my engine would have performed better in the balanced category.
Nice challenge Vic Victory!
Do you plan to continue this challenge through the years?
So you’re saying that putting MFI on an engine in the ‘balanced’ category wasn’t a good idea?
Either way, I liked the challenge, and I hope you make more of these.
Mruh? I thought the engine I sent in produced 150 HP.
LOL how about that. You won with the wrong engine!
Looks like Armada’s true to form: more horsepower for less reliability 
…apparently so! I could have sworn I sent in the turbo engine, but I checked the PM, and yeah - it’s the NA engine instead. Geez.