I see many people around here had the same idea as me and made Thunderbird clones. Now mine might look like a copy of a copy when I launch it -_-
1 Like
its fine as long as you don’t copy the buick invicta
Open Beta and stable are different builds again; will this be in OB or stable?
2 Likes
Currently openbeta, but once that merges with stable it won’t really matter. Though really, doing some test imports I haven’t found much issues with importing files made in stable to openbeta. However, to the paranoid fellas out there, I suggest switching to openbeta to be safe.
1959 ARMOR HAVANA
Pretty much a mashup of various Chryslers and Packards. The brakes are abysmal, but at least you’ll die in style.
18 Likes
23 out of 14 on the tail fins gotta say
2 Likes
Am i the first to guess who G is? Its Gman and the detective is Gordon Freeman
20 Likes
The 1957 Markley Gallivanter Hardtop coupe.
Powered by Markley’s robust 207ci straight six making 125hp and 160lb-ft of torque. It’s capable of doing 0 to 60 in under 12.9 seconds, the quarter mile in 19.4, and has a top speed of 110mph. This particular example features custom order request option PT30, adding heavy duty springs and shocks, 165C bias ply whitewall tires, and extra cooling capacity. Finished in Caribbean Blue over Ivory White with matching interior, it’s yours for only $12400.
15 Likes
17 Likes
I just tested the waters for a potential entry, and created an all-iron OHV V8 engine whose variant capacity was set to 6.4 liters, but the tight ET limits meant that I could fit nothing more complex than a pair of single-barrel standard (not eco) carbs. I did, however, manage to squeeze over 200 net horsepower out of it, with decent torque across the rev range. Even so, I am wondering if, somehow, a six-cylinder engine (most likely also OHV due to the tight budget) will actually appeal more to our client… Or not.
1 Like
I really don’t like shitstorm-starting in CSRs, so this is by no means complaining, I agree that rules are rules and that it is up to the host to set them up.
My OWN opinion is that I have never understood overly strict ET/PU limits in CSRs, because the last thing you ask yourself when you buy a car is such things that mainly affect the manufacturer, you probably will not even have a chance to get any information about engineering time or production units, and if you would, nobody would deny to buy a car just because “nah, it took too long to engineer the engine…”.
What I DO agree with though is that some kind of limit is probably needed, to make a CSR more of a challenge and for the sake of engineering realism.
In this case, however, since abg is bringing it up anyway, I wonder if the limits aren’t sort of becoming contraproductive instead. The clients are looking for a performance car. Not an exotic, but still something that would have been classed as a high performance alternative, and in the late 50s America that meant a V8 that probably would have had a carb arrangement like a single 4-barrel or a triple 2-barrel.
Now, it is very hard to make an engine with any arrangement like that. You are stuck with the single 2 barrel that were more often used for the low performance alternatives of the V8, even fitting a dual 2 barrel arrangement will be a hassle. At least without major negative quality spam.
What you CAN put in, however, is a triple 1-barrel arrangement. Something very odd and unusual that I can’t remember that any american V8 used in the late 50s.
If it becames hard to do realistic engineering decisions and you have to take strange shortcuts to make the car they want inside the ET limits, they may be a bit on the harsh side and does more harm than good for the realism IMO.
Now, I am perfectly fine with what the host have put up, it is too late to change them now, and I see no point in whining about them now, I say this more like a reminder what future hosts could think about when setting up ET/PU limits in the future.
6 Likes
FWIW I think the engineering time rules are just fine. Strict limits produce a challenge. The strict rules maybe push you towards an unrealistic choice because the stats are better, but you have to also remember that realism is a high priority as well and think twice. That’s your choice as the car builder, your compromise to weigh and decide upon.
Also, hosting a CSR is hard, and having people shit on your ruleset feels bad. We’re just trying to have fun here. If you don’t like a challenge’s ruleset you are free to not participate.
12 Likes
For what it’s worth, I’m quite pleased with what I was able to engineer under the revised limits. I think mine is pretty accurate for the time period (around 220 net hp, sub 9 second 0-60 time… in a full-sized car). Keep in mind, this is before the muscle car era began in 1964.
3 Likes
“We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems.” - Lee Iacocca
1959 Kaizen SCP22o Interceptor Package
K603 TU1 USDM variant
The background story
At the start of the 1950s, the US got involved in the Korean war. Faced with the logistical nightmare of having to ship everything from the United States to Korea, they turned to Japan, and its fledgling industry, as a major contributor to the war effort. Kaizen, being part of that group, manufactured vehicles and firearms for the US military, and this could be considered one of the significant moments in the company’s history, as it helped them get off the ground running, and started the story of the underdog aiming for the world’s best.
Kaizen mainly made a ton of military SUVs (think jeeps), but that platform was shared across all the vehicles they made, civilian or military (but with some modifications between each model). One of these vehicles was the officer’s staff car based off the S series, something comfortable yet reasonably simple for your country’s “white (non-combative) fleet.” The main difference from the standard civilian model was the option of 2 OHV V8s, and other changes that simplified production and service, while providing reasonable performance on rough roads.
It was also during the 1950s when the bosozoku gangs started to rise up across Japan, as many WWII veterans had a difficult time readjusting to civilian life, and turned to more “extreme” means to get excitement. The Japanese police demanded an undercover car that was better suited to get intel on and pursue them, while their colleagues could handle the detaining part. In 1956, the Interceptor Package was released specifically for this purpose, and other similar purposes around the world.
Based on the military staff car, the interior was stripped, with the entire rear seat replaced by a locked and concealed compartment for equipment. Around the world, 3 engines, a 3.5L inline 6, a 5.0L V8, and a 6.0L V8, were offered, all using a SOHC 2v layout and breathing through a single 2 barrel carburetor. A 4 speed manual transmission with RWD and an auto-locker diff was standard, supplemented by newly developed radial tires. In 1959, all engines gained a new single 4 barrel carburetor, and 4 wheel disc brakes were made standard.
For the USDM trim, Kaizen Corporation sent some senior staff across the US (but mainly in California and Hawaii), to figure out a strategy for the US market. Their findings resulted in the reversal to bias-ply tires and the use of the military spec OHV V8 engine (in both 5.0 and 6.0) forms to complement the unchanged inline 6 version. In addition, Kaizen would advertise heavily on how they helped the US during the Korean war, and how their SUVs were reliably serving the US military. Finally, major changes to the styling were carried out to the V8 versions to make it more suitable to American tastes, and serve its undercover purpose better.
Specs and images
Both coming soon
VEHICLE TYPE
Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE
$
ENGINE TYPE
Pulsus Bellicus 60B6R1
Naturally aspirated OHV 16-valve V8, cast-iron block and head, single 4 barrel carburetor, 87 AKI
Displacement
6.0L, 366 cu in, 5997 cc
Power
hp @ rpm
Torque
lb-ft @ rpm
TRANSMISSION
4-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension (F/R): double wishbone/coil sprung solid axle
Brakes (F/R): -in solid disc/-in solid disc
Tires: /R-14 V (No speed limiter)
DIMENSIONS
Not available
PERFORMANCE
Zero to 62 mph: sec
50 to 75 mph: sec
Standing ¼-mile: sec
Standing 1 km: sec
Braking, 62–0 mph: ft
Roadholding, 66-ft-dia skidpad: 0,800 g
Roadholding, 656-ft-dia skidpad: 0.770 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined: lol US mpg
17 Likes
Well, as I said…
Just a reflection, and an opinion that I have. There is not impossible to build a car that meets the rules, and I don’t see the point of complaining too much either, because in the end everyone has to stick to the same ruleset, so it will not be unfair to anyone. But on the other hand, feedback is never a bad thing since in the end, aren’t the opinions of the participants an important thing, that is the source of improvement many times? I feel that the forum competitions have improved much in the three years I have been posting here, and I doubt that it is because everyone thought that the competitions were perfect back then, they were not and they are not perfect now, because everything always can improve.
What I am saying is not “This is stupid, never do like this again”, it is just my opinion and I don’t want anyone to blindly follow it. If we are two people on this forum that has my opinion and the rest thinks that it is stupid, following it would be a disaster.
And I doubt that I will participate this time, but the only reason is that I have absolutely zero inspiration for design at the time. I have already managed to engineer a car that fits inside the ET limits anyway, so I am absolutely not pissed because of that limitation, because it is possible to meet and everyone else has to do the same. But as long as it looks about as inspiring as a bottle of shampoo it feels pointless to send it in anyway and there I am the one to blame and not the host.
But I feel like I have said what I had to say in this case now, and I don’t want to wreck yet another thread with a pointless discussion. It’s up to each and everyone to choose wheter to do the sane thing and think over my input, wheter they agree or not, or misinterpret it as whining about how bad this single CSR round and the host are. If anyone will choose to do the later, I really can’t help I guess, so I have said my last words regarding this particular question now.
3 Likes
I’ve never done one of these ultra-realistic CSR challenges, so I won’t be the slightest bit surprised if my car isn’t all that great… in fact, I’m fairly certain it’s not. Presenting the Ellatone Insignia II:
7 Likes
I think the ET limit (after it was bumped up) is just fine for cars of this era. If you leave it to price alone, Automation will tend to direct you towards some pretty unlikely designs. With a stricter ET limit, it’s still possible to use some higher tech, but lower tech stuff tends to have room for quality sliders and fancy stuff doesn’t. This also reflects back into the requirement for reliability and low maintenance costs; it’s not very realistic to have a reliable low-maintenance car with all the tech options available in 1959. Maybe it’s a bit redundant to the requirement for “realistic”/“American style” cars, but it makes sense.
That being said, I present:
The Lagomor MK II Sprint
Powered by a 286 cubic inch six-cylinder, the Lagmor Spring reaches 60 miles per hour in under 9 seconds! 275 gross horsepower* manages a top speed of 130 miles per hour! Racing-quality suspension makes for excellent cornering!
*210 net horsepower
With four premium leather seats and a radio, the Lagomor carries its passengers in comfort and style. The cabin and trunk are spacious enough for a king on the road.
Every component has been rigorously endurance tested for maximum durability! The Lagomor is a car you can bequeath to your grandchildren. Visit your local dealership to pick one up for just $2350!
11 Likes
"After picking up some suitable formalwear and coming out of the shop, I looked around to find a suitable car. Parked just outside the shop was this beauty of a car. I’m sure it’s a car i’ve not heard of before, I hear it’s imported, but after asking a stander-by, I seem to have attained information that this car is a 1956 Adderworks Boelens.
Notes; These tires are bloody huge! This car’s tires have to at least be 700 in thickness, absolutely massive cross-ply tires!
Vehemently, the reason behind this is due to this car having a V12. From the information i’ve learned, it has about 400-ish horsepower under that hood, with at least 380lb-ft of torque. If I slide in this thing, i’ll inevitably perish, but at least i’ll look good doing it."
The Detective
9 Likes