Well the customer is infact the host. If I understand CSR correctly.
Do you have any intention or interest in buying an eco 70s car? The worst era there was?
If not, you won’t be in character. I understand that these are only scenarios, but a cheapstake like Gerald would most likely not care for any plush interiour, if he drove a Peugeot before that.
CSR 105 - Finals part 2
@DoctorNarfy - Shromet Radiant Sport
Well, I know beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but although nicely quirky, this rear end seems too modern, and overall the car looks rather odd to me. But I appreciate the effort to try be unique. Also, is that a bloody fuel filler cap right next to where the kids are supposed to sit? Ah whatever.
As for the engine, did someone call 1-800-TORQUE? Jfc, it already got 107 Nm of torque at 1400 rpm, and still got it 2000 rpm’s later. This engine loves being shortshifted, and makes it rather good for eco driving, but well, it has pushrods, yup, pushrod valvetrain. Now the torque makes sense but… it isn’t the most efficient valvetrain either. Resulting into the car still consuming 9.6L / 100km.
Interior wise… It is… more modest than the other cars they’ve looked at, being very basicly clad with no real eye for additional finish or padding, still got that 8 track though. What it does have however is double wishbone suspension on all corners. So, you’re sitting on harsh stuff, but the harsh stuff of the road is soaked up rather well. Still, it makes the car cheap to buy, but the grandchildren may still prefer to sit in the “fancier” interiors of the other family members.
Costs wise, whew, cheap servicing 314.2, not sure how it is possible, but that is neat. along with a 61.9 reliability this car is very cheap to keep running mechanically, just the fuel economy letting it down to be a proper eco rocket.
Conclusion: Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, but not so cheap to refuel, and the interior is lacklustre compared to its competitors, also odd design.
@Oslo - Cayeux CX 1.6
Nice vinyl roofline, kinda classic, but looks pretty neat and has some character, especially with the colour, neat.
Now, this car is rather on the top of the budget, not cheap to run due to being relatively unreliable, 56.3 reliability is significantly under the 58 overall average, and its fuel economy is 9.2 L / 100 km. Also at the very top of Gerald’s purchase budget. What it does have though, is space, plenty of it. Also a very comfortable car, not due to a very plush interior but…
When you look under the bonnet, you get to see an 1.7L that has a snail attached to its exhaust, the exotic turbocharger technology. Now it is not the most responsive, it’s cutting edge early technology after all. But it helps the car develop a rather mad 154 Nm of torque. Helping the 1 tonne vehicle to still get that fuel economy, although at the price of having poor reliability, but being quite silent.
For the rest? Your usual vehicle, slightly laggy turbo that Gerald has to get used to, but it’s spacious.
Although, the front brakes, they never lock up, ever, making the car a quite slow stopper relatively, that’s its one most major flaw.
Conclusion: Expensive but strong contender, but expensive.
@zschmeez - Albatross Ventura
Convertible boi! Sure adds more flair, actually interesting for kids, although them trying to climb out may be a concern. Simple styling for the rest, but it works for the era.
Engine wise, quite torquey, 130 Nm of torque, although coming on later than one would like in a perfect world, it certainly isn’t bad and maybe even on the sporty side. Well, sporty without the huge consumption, not a eco hero, but 9.4 L/100 km isn’t terrible.
The brakes hardly ever lock up though, especially with kids aboard. Also not the most comfortable vehicle with its soft roof, lower safety, and it is on the harder side to drive. It is however alright with the interior and suspension, so really, actually the comfort is nice if the grandchildren like a nice sunny drive, but maybe a bit miserable in the rain.
Conclusion: Fun little “wildcard” entry, actually almost competitive for a top position, but its important stats are just too low.
@Quotex - GAF Trend 1.3 GLS
Charming lil car, but is it up to the competition?
Well, it has a modest, yet adequate engine, although it too has a later torque raise, but still acceptable at 2400 rpm. Not much torque to write home about though, just 87 Nm. But then again, it is a pretty light car. Still though, despite its small engine and size, the economy still is 9.3 L / 100 km, which isn’t bad, but nothing stellar.
Its brakes are good, but possibly only because its tyres aren’t. Despite its interior being about what we’ve gotten to expect with standard seats and a basic 8 track player, it scores fairly good for comfort thanks to good suspension tuning.
Is it cheap to run though? Well, service costs are average, 533.4 with average reliability, so nothing stellar here either. It is cheap to buy though, at 11200.
In short: a good all rounder, but nothing great, but at a pretty cheap purchase price. Sadly for it though the long term costs aren’t all that in its favor.
@thecarlover - Cascadia Combo Safari
Now this also is a wagon that is good looking, almost adventurous even.
Right, let’s slap that bonnet and look what’s hiding underneath it. Whew, torque coming on nice n early, at about 1800 rpm, 110 Nm, which should be adequate for its size. Quite interestingly though, this engine drives the rear wheels and not the front, bold move. Does it pay off? Well, the driveability still is good even compared to its FWD counterparts, so not too bad. Overall a pretty good power unit, but not the most economical one, gulping down 11 Litres every 100 km, being thirsty as hell.
As for the chassis, well, its front brakes dont lock up, so its stopping distance isnt great, but with medium compound, it still is very competitive. Its interior though, whew, now, that interior is a resort compared to others. Premium seats, 4 speakers, good 8 track. It’s almost a bouncy castle for the grand kids, a luxurious bouncy castle. The suspension is alright too.
The thing is though, the way Gerald looked at his wallet with pain. The kind of money this would cost over the years would be scarcely what he could afford.
Conclusion: Great comfort, but also at a great price.
@donutsnail - Legion Sparrow 1.4tci Turbo
Maybe a bit on the classic look, but the design has character, creating continuing lines and interesting shapes.
Well, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: 7.25 L / 100 km. What a fuel economy. How? A very, very low boost turbo, boosting only 0.44 bar, but that’s enough to make the car very econominal. Hell, it brings all of the modern eco tricks to the old times. squeezed that 1.4L in that’s just small enough to leave the car FWD. It is a quite laggy turbo though, so real life figures may differ drastically I recon. Still probably would be damn economical though. Surprisingly cheap to maintain too, 355.8 service costs with average reliability. This car is the cheapest to both keep in good condition and refuel way ahead of the rest. Still, the engine has a bit of a too modern design to be true back in its time, so I’m docking some points for that, but still very impressive.
What does the car have going for the rest though? Very little, it’s clear a lot of the budget went into the engine. The interior is subpar compared to the rest, only having basic seats and basic safety considerations. Still, the car’s engineering is almost scarily on point for the brakes, suspension and gearing. Suspension may be a tad on the stiff side, but that’s about the only of my criticism.
Conclusion: Car that lives up to its creator’s name, quite laggy turbo. Tad too modern engine design, and very basic for the rest, But it is a strong eco shitbox. Very cheap on Gerald’s money.
@NormanVauxhall - Znopresk Zap 1100E
What a lil eco bugger, it has some charm this design, the white doesn’t help it, but it’s supposed to be cheap after all.
Now, what the Legion needed to have a turbo for, the Zap does almost without, with an economy of 7.6L / 100 km. Just an naturally aspirated 1.25L inline 3. Is it smooth running and silent? oh by the gods no. Is it powerful? Still nowhere close. But it is very economical with still sufficient power, although it is getting real low with 48 horses. Still, torque is almost there at 2000 rpm, with no need for a cat.
The interior, surprisingly enough for its low 11k price, has standard seats and a basic 8 track entertainment box. It is rather cramped inside though, especially at the back. Still, well tuned suspension, although somewhat floaty, hampering how confidence inspiring it is to drive.
The biggest bane of its existence however, is its Italian nature, it likes to break down, a lot. With 55.6 reliability it is significantly below average, increasing its lifetime costs significantly, despite its great economy.
Conclusion: great eco, but still manages to be quite costly sadly enough. Very well sorted for its purchase price.
@CMT - CMT Mantra CLX
Funky 80’s styling, maybe a bit too funky and 80’s to my taste, but not bad. Still has a way to go to touch the styling of some entries here.
Now the engine, pretty torquey, not fully came on by 2400 rpm, but almost there, so again, bit of a late shifter, or makes it feel like you have to shift late. Very torquey power up top, so the 64 hp are more powerful than you’d think. It is not a loud engine, but the reverse flow - then baffled exhaust setup is interesting, could be more silent the other way round. This engine also managed to meet emissions without the use of a cat, not the leanest running either, so it could have had better economy than its 9.6 L/ 100 km.
The comfort of its interior is very comparable to the rest, maybe a bit less, lacking that extra touch, and its suspension is set almost to the sporty side. What it does have going for it though, is that it is very safe, 37.4 safe. Crash it against a tree? Almost no problemo… almost, hey everythi ng is relative.
Conclusion: Too weak comfort compared to the competition, but a very safe vehicle, which is good when carrying other people’s kids. Still, not cheap for what it really is.
Alright, so, whew, this was hard to pick in between. There were a few outstanding vehicles though, so without further ado, I’ll release the final top rankings here:
Rankings
6th - @NormanVauxhall for a classic eco shitbox very well executed, asides for reliability.
5th - @CorsicaUnknown for making the sexy Sisten, very strong overall, but had a hard safety flaw.
4th - @zschmeez for making the best wildcard entry. Now a convertible is something that gives you an edge in the fierce grandparent competition, and it was pretty competitive despite the sacrifices it made to be a convertible, in the end not competitive enough, but hats off to you sir.
3rd - @donutsnail for making the cheapest option long term by a mile, the eco shitbox was strong in this one, although its engine design a tad too modern approach to be realistic.
2nd - @Oslo for making the most comfortable car that still is somewhat affordable, was too expensive in the end to win, but it was closer to some eco shitboxes in terms of cost than you’d expect.
1st - @Repti for making the strongest all-rounder, and as such the top grandchildren hauler
18 Likes
I like the Legion Sparrow. May it be possible for me to acquire such car?
4 Likes
Okay this is a suprise a big one. I said that I didn’t had much of faith for my submittion but it somehow ended 2nd. @Dragawn thanks for hosting this one it was a good one. The competition was harsh.
About the next CSR I will be able to host if the @Repti won’t be able to. Just don’t expect much from me cause I have never done it before!
5 Likes
Knew the Honghu wouldn’t do well submitting it, but great fun reading through the reviews. Thanks for a good round Dragawn!
4 Likes
Mission accomplished! I remember having a fantastic time in my grandpa’s 1979 450SL when I was little, and I thought that excitement would translate to the game and these grandkids. Thanks for an excellent competition!
3 Likes
Oh awesome! I’m actually at work, so sorry for not responding sooner. I’m gonna have to pass on hosting since I’m going on a family vacation starting tomorrow, and I’m not too keen on typing everything on a phone while on vaction.
Congrats to everyone else who made it to the finals ^w^
7 Likes
So it looks like I am going to host (yey - not really for me well at least a new experience) I will try to make something up till tomarrow.
Btw congrads @Repti on winning
5 Likes
Congrats to @Repti on the win! I knew as soon as I saw your advertisement that your car would likely be tough competition.
I’m happy with where my car placed. In hindsight, I could have improved the interior and/or safety while still under budget, as I was only $12,700 as submitted. But my priorities were 1) fuel economy and 2) running costs, and on those fronts, the Sparrow delivers. In future CSRs though, I will aim for a better all-around package.
@Oldenways, I can PM you the .car file if you’d like!
4 Likes
Almost forgot, thank for hosting CSR @Dragawn , The equations were a bit goofy, but other than that i had a lot of fun with this one.
1 Like
Yours kinda scared me when it easily passed the the first few rounds, but I thought your reliablity and service cost would be much higher with the turbo. Nice job on making a competitive turbo car!
Damn, people breaking one of the overarching rules of CSR.
Don’t tag the winner
It’s fine, I don’t mind it too much. My notifications are still cleaner than my email so
I hadn’t realized that still applies after the winner has already commented again, my apologies.
You deserved to claim your first-ever win this round, so congratulations on beating out a very strong field of contenders, mine included! At least I can hold my head high knowing that Gerald had a very favorable opinion of the little green GEC GC1.
At any rate, this was one of the best econobox rounds we’ve had in a while - as good as CSR81 (which this round reminds me of), if not more so! And we haven’t had a 70s CSR round at all for some time, so this definitely represents a welcome change of pace.
I could have considered a smaller twin-cam in-line three with four-valve heads for my choice of engine, given that it could potentially have been even more powerful and economical if tuned correctly, but rejected that idea for being too far ahead of its time in favor of a larger single-cam straight-four - and Gerald’s final verdict vindicated my decision.
2 Likes
It is up. Have fun!
5 Likes