Finally i can take the glue off my PC cha… puts more glue
I expected way less powerful cars! The body is the size of a Fiesta, so i indeed went for FiST performance, but the all-aluminium construction screwed it up, i wanted to be realistic and sensible, but also to have a groundbreaking, advanced car. That backfired. I’m making it better, just for science! 
“Sensible” and “Jakgoe” do not go in the same sentence. Or paragraph. Or language.
I improved page for Rigel a bit so if you’re interested in looking up its stats now you can: automationhub.net/company-ca … rmodel/208
Congratulations for Janekk for winning, thanks to Cheeseman and Wizzy for taking their time to do this, very nice work.
Vic said that Jakgoe and sensible don’t go in the same sentence, the issue there was me. I was the one who decided to take a realistic approach, making the RS version directly related to the common Quark, which had won the comparison. The plan was to use the same engine, albeit tuned for extra sportiness. However, when talking Jack decided to make a new engine, which is miles better. But, having it based on a sensible car hampered the capabilities of the car. It still has the same AHS steel chassis and steel body, couple with cheap torsion beam suspension. The morphing is exactly the same, as are the headlights and taillights.
Congratulations again to Janekk who won using a bespoke car, developed to excel at this challenge. I am very pleased with my second place conquered by my sensible approach and an attempt at being realistic.
I’m using AHS steel monocoque and torsion beam too. The biggest reason I used V8 is … because V6 isn’t available yet, I6 is too long to fit and I simply didn’t want I4. In any case it’s hard to tailor a car for challenge when basically all you’re told is to build FWD hot-hatch. I assure you Cheeseman didn’t secretly send me scoring guidelines 
.
If only superchargers were available, it would make I4s alot more interesting for this type of challenge, think of the supercharged Ariel atoms engine.
The 2.0 limit did no favors either.
I’m not going to argue with getting 8th place but I wonder why turbo lag is taken into account? Automation doesn’t have antilag systems for turbos or modern stuff like twin scroll or variable geometry turbos. It’s pretty hard to minimize turbo lag while keeping the power output high.
You can make this: use a performance turbo preset, down the wastergate pressure at 0.5, and up the compression relation depending your fuel system.
Automation needs the twin scroll… and a electric engine in the turbo (like the next RS Audi TDI cars, yep the RS5 TDI, I’m not crazy).
The Prato-Gratsk claims 3rd place! Ladies and Gentleman we have entered the podium! B-|
Excellent work from everybody who put in time, effort, sweat and blood into this! It really adds to the automation experience. Thank You!
Side note, well done to everyone else who competed in the hot hatch review, when we meet in the fictional highways of automation land, feel free to pass me at 135mph but I will be cruising in my ‘mild’ hatch budget luxury
I’m terribly sorry for the HUGE delay, but here we are, ready for another TG1 review! I promise I’ll try to be reasonable.
Our car of the day is…
The[size=200] 2014 Hu Aspiration 2.3[/size].
A cheap Chinese car that should fulfill the inexpensive large sedan market.
[quote]2.3 liter (2304 CC) inline-4
151 HP @ 6400 RPM
146 lb-ft @ 3600 RPM
3671.6 lbs.
24.4 MPG
5-Speed automatic gearbox, FWD
0-62 MPH in 10.5 Seconds
Quarter Mile in 17.58 Seconds @ 81 MPH[/quote]
Performance- http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
The Aspiration has a gutsy 2.3L Inline-4 producing 151 HP. Now, figures like that are what I’d expect from a 2.0, but in this class it isn’t that bad, if you consider other model it’s up against. Top speed and acceleration are on the slow side for the class, probably due to the Aspiration’s massive weight and size. What IS bad is the smoothness. The engine just isn’t smooth, and maybe as coarse as some sandpaper. That said, it isn’t all bad. The torque, while decent, doesn’t really falter until the top. The responsiveness is meh. However, the Aspiration is no fun to drive, and will not let you even think of turning that wheel sharply. Even then, it’s still a handful to drive, and the gearing isn’t the best. In the end, while somewhat decent, the Aspiration does not aspire to be a sports sedan- or anything fun.
***Ride Comfort-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
The Aspiration shows itself to have surprisingly firm suspension. Strange, considering the class and the creator’s intentions. While the gargantuan 205/70 tires help ease a lot of the bump, the coarse engine and firm suspension don’t do much justice for this large sedan. However, the firm suspension does help in one major aspect; while the Aspiration hates hard cornering, the suspension tuning helps greatly in keeping the car flat in the corners. It was fairly difficult to get my colleagues seasick in this car, even if every bump we went over could become an annoyance.
***Handling-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
One of the places where the Hu trips and nearly- NEARLY- falls is in cornering. I drove the car on the track, threw it into a corner, and BAM! the grip I wanted was non-existent. Blame it on the long-life tires and the 3600+ lb weight. Of course, the steering is awfully numb, and considering the car type and everything, it is unruly to drive. It’s on the verge of being scary. Although there are enough driver assists to help save you when you need it, they’re manufactured cheaply and work marginally well. All in all, driving the Hu isn’t really fun; and it isn’t all that safe and cuddly to make up for it.
***Refinement-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
The engine itself is actually very quiet. While it is quite coarse, it doesn’t mean it’s all that loud. There is a great amount of sound deadening material on the inside; however, you get the feeling that it isn’t really doing its’ job as well as it should be. Although the engine is quiet and there is a lot of deadening, you sense that the quality of the deadening is very cheap.
***Equipment-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
Ever heard of the saying “Bang for your buck”? Well, the Aspiration is the perfect car for that slogan. With premium entertainment that, while suffering from the car’s trend of poor quality, can mostly be found on cars costing 2 to 3 times more, the Aspiration really does give you your money’s worth. There are a fair amount of driver assists as mentioned before, although it also suffers from poor quality. The only part here that doesn’t have a cheap feeling is the safety itself, which while not bad quality, has normal technology for this generation. The quality of the equipment lets the car down, but in the end, you are still getting a heck of a lot of gadgets for the price you pay.
***Quality-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
Again, the interior has premium equipment and looks stylish. But, also again, the quality of the interior isn’t great. You can tell where the people at Hu cut corners to make the car cheap. As mentioned before as well, the safety equipment is average for the class. No matter how good the interior is, you can obviously notice where corners were cut to make the car cheap.
***Reliability-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
I mean, the reliability is kind of meh. Of course, you’d expect it to be meh. The trend of poor quality is shown in every place of the car, and it isn’t hard to think that bad quality is going to translate into a car with OK reliability.
***Running Costs-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
If the category of Running costs only based it on Service costs, the Aspiration would easily get 4 stars. But, when you have to factor in fuel economy, the score drops to a single lonely star. I mean, seriously, 24.4 MPG? From a car that has 151 HP? Even when factoring in the weight, the car should easily get 30-40. The question is why does it have such bad economy.
***Structure-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
Steel panels on a steel chassis makes for a pretty safe car- when you’re in a crash, that is. It actually seems to have some good quality, as well. Driver assists are again there but quality lets them down a bit, and safety equipment is average. A fairly safe car if you’re ever going to get into an accident.
***[size=150]—Overall—[/size]***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
Pros: Fairly safe, Lots of bang for your buck, little body roll, pretty quiet.
Cons: Almost everywhere is a sign of bad quality, unsafe in the corners, still manages to be dull, very poor fuel economy, coarse engine.
Conclusion: Certainly a bang-for-your-buck car, but as I’ve said too many times to count, the quality is noticeably lacking. Performance is also lacking, and don’t try to even attempt at driving fast.
I always use the high flow 3 way cat
It really depends on what type of car you are making.
There is no point in spending the additional money for anything other than performance applications.
I find if I run a higher end cat and expensive mufflers I can run a smaller diameter exhaust and it helps with mid range torque.
[quote=“titleguy1”]I’m terribly sorry for the HUGE delay, but here we are, ready for another TG1 review! I promise I’ll try to be reasonable.
Our car of the day is…
The[size=200] 2014 Hu Aspiration 2.3[/size].
A cheap Chinese car that should fulfill the inexpensive large sedan market.
—Statistics—
[quote]2.3 liter (2304 CC) inline-4
151 HP @ 6400 RPM
146 lb-ft @ 3600 RPM
3671.6 lbs.[/quote]
36.3 MPG
5-Speed automatic gearbox, FWD
0-62 MPH in 10.5 Seconds
Quarter Mile in 17.58 Seconds @ 81 MPH
***Running Costs-***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
If the category of Running costs only based it on Service costs, the Aspiration would easily get 4 stars. But, when you have to factor in fuel economy, the score drops to a single lonely star. I mean, seriously, 24.4 MPG? From a car that has 151 HP? Even when factoring in the weight, the car should easily get 30-40. The question is why does it have such bad economy.
***[size=150]—Overall—[/size]***http://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/firmLlM.png
Pros: Fairly safe, Lots of bang for your buck, little body roll, pretty quiet.
Cons: Almost everywhere is a sign of bad quality, unsafe in the corners, still manages to be dull, very poor fuel economy, coarse engine.
Conclusion: Certainly a bang-for-your-buck car, but as I’ve said too many times to count, the quality is noticeably lacking. Performance is also lacking, and don’t try to even attempt at driving fast.[/quote]
I am a little confused…
Which one of the red highlights is correct?
Oh, my bad. 24.4 is correct.
We have to worry about the 12th march? I mean, the car entered for the executive cars comparison will not work with the new patch.
Are you guys taking down all the info in order to do the review or you are going to show the results before the 12th? (i can dream, right?)
The numbers have been crunched and the order has been determined. At this point it’s just a matter of finishing text and layout.
Thanks for the explanation
What about the single car reviews? Im assuming most of those will need to be resubmitted.
I really ought to check here more often and the same goes for updating you lot.
Yes. I will try and do what I did last time by giving “priority” to those who sent a review in before, but I will only keep it going for a while. If you want to get a car reviewed, you got to be quick.
As for sending reviews in, no car will be accepted from now until further notice will all the formulas are changed in order to reflect the changes made in the game.
The comparison will be late (AGAIN) and it could be a while before you see it.
I think that is everything.
