CSR 137: Life after (V8) Falcodore (Completed - Results posted)

CSR 137: Life after (V8) Falcodore

Previous thread


Click here

September 2018 - Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Meet Tim, a 28-year-old man who recently graduated from Uni, and now has a job with a decent salary. As a devoted petrolhead since birth, raised on the decades-long rivalry between Ford and Holden, he imagined owning a brawny V8 muscle car from either of them in his youth, hoping to own one later in life. It seemed like a great plan on paper. Trouble was, he only had his license upgraded from P2 to open status several months ago, and by the time that happened, both Ford and Holden had stopped all local manufacturing, leaving him with no more new home-grown muscle cars to choose from!

“No worries, mate!” he thought to himself as he read some magazine articles about the latest European super sedans. He was tempted for a while - only to be shocked at how much more they cost compared to a top-spec HSV or FPV. “That’s way out of my budget, so I’ll guess I’ll have to make do with a front-drive hot hatch if I want a new performance car to carry my mates around in - hang on, what if other brands offer something similar to those V8 Falcodores that just went off sale? And at a relatively low price to boot? Seems like I could have a deal on my hands!”

Just as he began pondering his options, Tim realized that he was not only married, but also had two children to take care of, which meant that anything that didn’t have four doors and five seats (unless it was a two-door coupe with four seats) was off the table. He didn’t need to carry lots of stuff around, though, so wagons, utes, SUVs, and minivans were also out of the question. And until recently, he also thumbed his nose at turbos, AWD and automatic gearboxes for taking too much driver skill out of the equation - before realizing that in some cases, they can actually make a car better, and so he reluctantly accepted the use of such new-fangled technologies. With those in mind, his car-buying criteria were set, but in the meantime, he had other stuff to take care of, such as work commitments…

Trim Requirements and Preferences

  • Trim year 2018; model year can be anything from 2012 to 2018 inclusive.

  • Longitudinal front-engined only, RWD preferred (although AWD is accepted). Tim may be young, but as an enthusiast, he is a man of the old school, and he prefers only the back pair of wheels to be driven for maximum enjoyment. That said, he also likes the idea of a well-sorted AWD system flinging him out of corners as if he were Colin McRae.

  • Manual gearbox preferred (although automatic and dual-clutch transmissions are also allowed). Tim prefers to be in complete control of his car all the time, right down to the gear changes, but he also has experience with automatics (including dual-clutch gearboxes).

  • Maximum ET of 170.

  • No parts that reduce production efficiency (such as full aluminum panels - partial aluminum is fine) - Tim isn’t looking for a low-volume product.

  • Engine cooling factor must be 60 or higher - in general, Australia is a hot country, and Tim doesn’t want his new car to overheat all the time, especially with summer a few months away.

  • Environmental resistance of 35 or higher - even in the dry Australian climate, rust can still be a problem.

  • Fuel economy must be 15 US mpg or higher (15.681 l/100km or less) - Tim doesn’t want to spend too much time looking for the nearest bowser.

  • Must be a 2-door coupe or 4-door sedan (as V8 Falcodores often were) - no wagons, hatchbacks, trucks, utes or MPVs. 3- and 5-door liftbacks count as coupes and sedans, respectively, for eligibility purposes. Also, if you wish to enter a coupe, make sure that the body you chose can accommodate two rows of seats.

  • Must have 5 full-sized seats (no +3 in the rear row, with two bucket seats only in the front row). Exception: 2-door coupes only need two full-sized seats in the rear row (no +2).

  • Minimum safety value of 60, and ESC (stability control) will be required. This is to simulate contemporary safety regs, and also takes into account the fact that the latter is now a mandatory fitment on all new cars.

  • No off-road parts of any kind - this isn’t about finding a vehicle that can “go bush”, and besides, he already has a dual-cab ute for that purpose.

  • Tires must not be semi-slick or have a lower profile than 30, and cannot have a width exactly divisible by 10 - it’s not a race car, after all, and not all Australian roads are as smooth as glass.

  • Wheelbase (as shown in tooltip on the body selection tab) must be between 2.70 m and 3.0 m (106.3 inches and 118.11 inches) inclusive.

  • Body unlock year must be 2005 or later - it mustn’t look like a rolling relic from the distant past.

  • Approximate cost should be no more than $65,000. You can exceed this limit, but not by too much, and even then, only if you have a very good reason that can justify going over budget.

  • No meme or 3-fixture cars, and no meme mods either. Most mods are accepted, though.

Engine Rules and Recommendations

  • Variant year must be set to 2018.

  • Engine can be either naturally aspirated or turbocharged. Tim was raised on atmo V8s, but knows a good turbo donk (that’s Aussie slang for engine, by the way) when he sees one.

  • No race intake or headers. It has to be street-legal, after all.

  • Maximum loudness of 40.

  • Maximum engine emissions of 150.

  • Maximum ET of 170.

  • No V16s and a maximum of 4 valves per cylinder.

  • A V8 engine (especially a 90-degree one with a cross-plane crankshaft) is strongly preferred, but not required - six-cylinder engines will also be accepted.

  • 91 regular, 95 RON premium or 98 super unleaded required, with a very slight running costs penalty for premium, and a slightly larger penalty for super.

  • A three-way catalytic converter of some kind is required.

  • Due to OBD-II being mandatory in Australia, carburetors and mechanical fuel injection are banned.

Major Priorities (in decreasing order of importance) :star::star::star::star::star:

  • Sportiness - Tim’s new car needs to be fun to drive, and as such not only has to be fast in a straight line, but also must handle and stop well (also factoring in resistance to brake fade). Oh, and he’ll be setting a standing start lap time at Mount Panorama in each of the cars - assuming they don’t get instabinned.

  • Styling - As a rule, if it looks right, then it is right - anything bland or ugly (or, worse still, both) will be a tough sell for Tim and his family. Given his age, Tim is also partial to bright colors, especially if they fit the car’s exterior design, but he’s not afraid of more sober tones either.

  • Drivability - Tim’s new car will still be his daily driver. Anything too challenging to drive will destroy his patience.

Moderate Priority (also in decreasing order of importance) :star::star::star::star:

  • Comfort - Again, since Tim’s looking for a daily driver, a comfortable experience will make him feel better about his new car, especially on long road trips. This criterion depends not only on interior and in-car entertainment types and quality, but also on brake pad type and suspension tune. Transmission type won’t be as much of a factor, though, given that manuals are inherently less comfortable than automatics.

  • Prestige - Tim wants to earn the approval of his mates (and other road users) with his next purchase, so a flashier car might be a better choice for him.

  • Safety - Tim knows that modern cars have lots of tech that make it easier to avoid or survive a crash. Even so, he wants his next car to easily protect him in (or, better still, from) an accident.

Minor Priorities (yet again, in decreasing order of importance) :star::star::star:

  • Reliability - It may be full of tech under the skin, but Tim would rather have confidence that his next car won’t break down too often, given that he wants to use it for road trips when he gets the chance.

  • Practicality - Tim’s wife bought him a dual-cab ute recently, one with loads of cargo capacity. That said, a little more boot space in his other new car would be of some use to him.

  • Running costs - High-performance sports sedans are, by their very nature, not the cheapest cars to buy, run or service. However, Tim’s family has plenty of cash to spare, so this won’t be too much of an issue for them.


  • Be sensible - no min-maxing, or you’ll end up on the bin list.
  • You can make your car’s exterior design loud and proud, or restrained and refined, or somewhere in between the two. Click the spoiler below for examples.
  • Money saved is money earned, but going too far under budget is not recommended.
  • Almost forgot about this, but some of you might be tempted to use a coupe body and make it look like a sedan, or vice versa. Don’t do it - I just realized that this counts as cheating and will not accept such measures.
  • If it’s not listed in the rules, then it isn’t a rule.

Design Inspiration




Submission Guidelines

Please submit your entries by exporting the .car files via PM on these forums (not Discord) using the following naming scheme:

Model and engine family name: CSR137 - your forum username
Trim name: Your car’s make and model
Variant name: Your engine’s model and variant

I almost forgot to include this, but all submissions must be accompanied by an ad (with at least one picture of the car) in this thread.

Submissions will open on Saturday, 1 May 2021 at 12:00 AM AEST and will close on Monday, 10 May 2021 at 12:00 AM AEST. If you submit your entry before I begin accepting submissions, you may revise it in the event of a rule violation; however, you will not be allowed to make any resubmissions if you submitted your entry after the round has opened.

Please note that in the hours since I first posted it, I have repeatedly updated the OP in response to recent user feedback - make sure to read it once again after each update to remind yourself of the changes I have made.

Above all, good luck, and have fun!


So we’re going for modern sports sedans? I can dig it. One immediate suggestion though, please list various minimum/maximum values in both measurement systems. As it stands you have US fuel economy and metric wheelbases.

EDIT: Actually, one other thing: There are only a handful post-2007 Sedan bodies. I’m afraid that people like myself, who aren’t 3D transformation gods like Kyorg, might end up with a bunch of duplicates.


Australia has a standard fuel of 91RON so this rule makes no sense. 91RON is substantially cheaper per litre than 95RON at most fuel stations, plos 98RON is also readily available in all but the most remote fuel stations. 95RON only reflects the origin of the export country; 95RON for Europe, 91RON for the US and Japan w/ 95 or 98RON used for specific variants.

So the fuel should be 91RON minimum with 95 and 98RON allowed but carrying a running cost penalty (albeit a small one compared to registration, insurance and speeding fines!)


Advanced 10s safety as a minimum requirement? I mean, I get it’s not a cheap car, but that sounds like the buyer’s looking for a well-specced Volvo Polestar…


I like the idea of the round, but I suggest being less restrictive with the bodies. There are a couple of '06 bodies which fit the bill perfectly as Commodore/Falcons, and honestly the '95 A8 and '87 crownvic could work too if executed right

Also, why not allow all drivetrain types, with the caviat that sportiness is looked at more favorably than drivability and so FR would be preferred. Maybe expand the allowed body types to everything, with the caviat that sedans between those wheelbases are preferred and will be judged favorably compared to others.

1 Like

Would the '07 liftback body be considered a hatchback? Because it could make for a unique design if it were allowed.


I would recommend lifting the body unlock year rule - I get what you’re going for it but people can design something very modern even on a body that is slightly ‘outdated’. Leave the filtering of outdated styling to the judging.


V8 RWD Sedans
@66mazda and I have an RCN coming right up.


let’s remake this I guess :thinking:


I changed the body unlock year to 2005 after realizing that the XF body would have been excluded if I didn’t do so. Liftbacks won’t be allowed, though, especially since Tim already has a dual-cab ute to haul stuff in, as the OP states. And I added justification for the front-engined, rear-drive/manual gearbox/naturally aspirated trim/engine requirements, as well as factoring exterior color into exterior design. Also, 91, 95 and 98 RON are all accepted now, and ads for any and all submitted cars are now required.

In addition, wheelbase and fuel economy requirements are now stated in both imperial and metric measurements, and the reason for the former is that anything too small may be insufficiently practical for him, while anything too big will often be too difficult to maneuver in tight spaces such as car parks.

And regarding the ET limits: I made them the way they are after discovering that the trims and engines I made while preparing this round could be made to fit under those values.

And given that I clinched runner-up spot (much to my surprise and amazement) in the previous CSR with a muscle car in a field of roadsters, I felt that a muscle car theme would be quite fitting for CSR 137.

As for the requirement for 5 seats: Tim wants to take a few friends with him every now and then. Besides, he has to carry both of his children on the school run, as well as the occasional road trip, sometimes going as far as another state or territory.

1 Like

Does the car have to be in betweeen 2.70m and 3.0m or could it be exactly the limit?

I mean, I feel like there are too many restrictions in place in regards to body styles, body size, and (seemingly) many other required items on the list, such as the safety (Advanced in my opinion is very high end, but I guess with the 60k budget, it’s fine for this). It’s also significantly implied that if it’s not a V8, it will be binned.

It just feels like you’re asking for an extremely specific car, and I’d bet that 90% of the field will be exactly the same car, just tuned slightly differently. Removal of the engine type restriction and body style would probably give a more varied field, but if you want to stick to this, it’s more power to you.


I agree with Admiral_Obvious above. Look, if you want a Chevy SS/Holden Commodore replica, you can make it yourself, but using CSR as a way to ask for this extraordinarily specific car which likely matches your test mule exactly is not going to make for a fun challenge. As it currently stands, the community gets to make nearly no decisions about what actually goes into this car outside of styling, and the body selection is so small that even that is limited. If I were you, I would seriously rethink the guidelines of this CSR. This is going to be a boring challenge with little to no wiggle room for contestants as it currently stands. People are putting this lightly in this thread, but the reality is that this is a flawed setup for a challenge of this type- would be fine for something much smaller, but not for CSR. Please reconsider the limitations you have set up.


Adding on to this, you’re mandating an naturally aspirated engine rule and manual only rule, but then you contradict that with examples that are primarily turbocharged and supercharged cars that either have a traditional automatic transmission or a DCT. What you’re asking for doesn’t match with what you’re presenting, I’m afraid. The rules are far too specific and severely limit what this challenge could be. That said, the brief has a lot of promise, you’re just blocking that with silly and quite frankly pointless rules.


In the last 3 challenges had a rugged truck challenge which had an AMC Eagle as a design inspiration, and a retromodern sporty and luxurious round that had a PT Cruiser and Beetle cabriolet as design inspirations. This is because the inspirations page focuses on design.

As for the restrictive rules, while I think that engines ought to be liberalized (Realistically, you’re going to have turbos in any non-American sports sedan, and because generally weird engine setups are fun to enthusiasts), there’s a clear reason why a manual is preferred. We are selling to an enthusiast who doesn’t like the car doing his job. It’s a reasonable request. With the lavish trim ET limit there’s a fair bit each of us can do on the engineering side already, so I don’t think this brief is too bad even as it stands - thou8gh of course it’d be much more fun if we could choose the engine type more freely.


In response to recent feedback:

The OP now states that V8 engines are merely preferred, not outright required. Also, I have downgraded the minimum safety requirement to Standard 10s, although you can still use Advanced 10s safety if you want to.

Right on either limit is fine, as is anything in between.

OK, I’ll downgrade natural aspiration and manual transmissions from being required to merely recommended.

With that in mind, I’m allowing liftbacks and two-door coupes into the mix, with one additional stipulation: coupes only need four full-sized seats (no +2 in the back row) instead of five. And yes, I will make sportiness more important than drivability.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that AWD can be allowed, although with sportiness now more important than drivability, RWD will still be preferable.


So after examining the suggestions above, please allow me to update the OP accordingly.

Edit: The OP is now updated. If you are satisfied with the changes I have made, I will start the round at the intended date and time as originally planned.


Muscle cars, hrmm? Let’s see if I can build on my Round 2 success. Also, a minor clarification: V8 is preferred and V16 is out, but are V10s and V12s at the least not instabinned?

Yes, this is mainly a muscle car round, even though the client prefers a four-door car. Also, regarding your note on engine configurations: Theoretically, V10 and even V12 engines are allowed, but the OP states that min-maxed builds are a one-way ticket to bin city, so don’t expect to see too many of them here given the trim/engine ET limits.

Speaking of which, to allow a little more headroom, I have decided to increase both the maximum trim and engine ET to 170, to make those two engine configurations you mentioned (along with AWD) more of a viable proposition. To account for these changes, I have also raised the recommended maximum price to $65,000. Finally, I will no longer require the use of a specific type of safety suite at minimum, instead settling on a minimum value of 60, so please check the OP to see the changes.

On the subject of rule changes, I did not originally intend to make them, but reluctantly had to after realizing that my original rule set turned out to be too restrictive given that it would have forced entrants to build a very specific kind of car, with too little mechanical variety, had I left it as it was. Now that it’s more open, I hope others will warm to it more easily.


what is implied by min maxxing exactly?

Any chance you might include the 3.1m wheelbase BMW bodies or other bodies of the same wheelbase? It’s not very far off from 3.0m and I’m not exactly sure why you’d want it out.