2018 Hanekawa C40
1.4L I4 154hp 16V dohc
5 Likes
CSR141 is now closed for submissions.
Submissions have now closed. If you have submitted and haven't posted an ad yet, please be sure to do so.
So far, I have recieved submissions from-
@Vena.Sera423
@cake_ape
@interior
@nate21
@abg7
@HybridTronny
@Prium
@Serperior98
@CriticalSet9849
@Edsel
@Knugcab
@Sovaine
@nightwave
@Riley and @Ryan93
@BG004130
@DuceTheTruth100
@S31
@ImKaeR
@lotto77
@Texaslav
@Falling_Comet
@desperatedonut5
@EnCR
@pcmoreno
@Maxbombe
@Maverick74
@S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
@AndiD
@donutsnail
@Elizipeazie
@Urke101
@RAZR
@Quneitra
@Kyorg
@BannedByAndroid
@asami
@66mazda
@voiddoesnotknow
@I_expect_nothing
@Borisu
If you donât see your name on this list, please be sure to tell me.
12 Likes
CSR141 Submissions (cont.)
Submissions have now closed. If you have submitted and haven't posted an ad yet, please be sure to do so.
@ARM_Tune
@Xepy
@the-chowi
@Mikonp7
@HelloHi
@Portalkat42
@mat1476/@mcp928
@vouge
@yurimacs
@Tsundere-kun
If you donât see your name on this list, please be sure to tell me.
9 Likes
CSR 141- Phase 0- Instabins
Jefferson Geode Select- @nate21
The first car on the sales teamâs list was the Jefferson Geode. Looking into it however, they found that it was a bit big for their needs.
Reason for bin- exceeded the maximum wheelbase limit. You also had some of the worst fuel efficiency, very low practicality and drivability, and you were just so-so everywhere else.
Bazard Armada- @Edsel
Next up on the sales teamâs list was the Bazard Armada. At first it seemed okay, but after some additional research they found it was a bit old for their tastes.
Reason for bin- trim year incorrect. You also had very low drivability, comfort and safety working against you, not to mention ITBs on an economy engine and a humdrum design.
Sovaine Artemis- @Sovaine
Next up on the list was the Sovaine Artemis. The contemporary design was well liked, but they found that it was still a while off.
Reason for bin- exceeded maximum engine ET. Also working against you was an economy driven minmax I6T and relatively low reliability.
Ibis Kestrel ES- @nightwave
Next up was the Kestrel ES. The sales team liked its reliability and low service costs, but found that it too was a while off.
Reason for bin- exceeded maximum engine ET. Working against you was an awkward front design and low efficiency.
Sparrow C 4L- @lotto77
Next up on the list was the Sparrow C 4L. The sales team liked how affordable it was and how easy to drive it is, but they found that the specific trim they were looking at isnât coming out for a while, and it has a very old engine.
Reason for bin- both trim and engine variant years incorrect. Working against you was a strange design, very low reliability, low safety and very high service costs.
Callahan Cascade FE- @Texaslav
Next on the list was the Callahan Cascade. The sales team mostly liked the design, how reliable and cheap to service it is, and how easy to drive it is. However, they were put off when they found out that it takes a fuel thatâs unavailable in Seattle.
Reason for bin- exceeded maximum octane rule. Working against you was a bare steel body, ITBs on an economy engine, and low practicality.
Cross Towncar 1.5 Select AllDrive- @voiddoesnotknow
Next up on the list was the Cross Towncar. The sales team was put off by itâs awkward design, but liked how practical and safe it was. However, they found that it wonât be available for a while.
Reason for instabin- exceeded maximum trim ET. Working against you was the design, AWD when it was wholly unnecessary and expensive and tires staggered by 60mm for some reason.
RetroniX Eunix- @yurimacs
Next up on the list was RetroniX Eunix. The sales team liked the design, how practical and easy to drive it was, and its efficiency. However, upon closer inspection the sales team found that itâs also a while off.
This one hurts to do but; Reason for bin- over maximum trim ET. Also working against you was low safety, semi-active and active suspension options on a car that wouldnât have it irl, and a kinda late turbo spool in comparison with other cars.
27 Likes
13 Likes
Fashionably late 
3 Likes
No Way!!! I made past the instabins?!! What happens to me?! Am I beeing good at that for once?! 
I take that as âyour car met all the requirements for this round and is therefore eligible for proper judgingâ. Granted, it wonât guarantee a spot in the finals, but at least your entry passed technical inspection.
1 Like
Darn it! I changed the model year at one point, and I guess it changed the trim year automatically without me realizing. That is quite a shame.
Still, with the amount and strength of the competition, I could tell I was going to fall behind pretty quickly anyway (especially given that I thought drivability was gonna be one of my strengths O.O). Thanks for hosting this, and best luck to the rest of yaâll!
2 Likes
I agree,
I knew my car was correct rule-wise but I always get binned for non rule related stuff so Iâm surprised!!
Happy about that!
Eek, guess I misclicked a couple of times on the trim year because I was sure that was right, and the engine was really a muck up on top of that.
Learning experience to not rush it I guess!
See, this is why you should double-check everything! I worked on trim engineering and design for so long I forgot my engine had ITBs on it for some reason, and was using 93 even though I tuned it for 90. Damn, that stings.
Welp, at least I learned how to taillight with this car.
3 Likes
CSR 141- Phase 1- Eliminations
FWM Tempo- @Vena.Sera423
First up on the sales teamâs list was the FWM Tempo. For the most part they liked the design, but thought some bits (like the really tiny door handles) were a bit off. Reading on, they found that the Tempo wasnât the easiest to drive, expensive to fix, and reliability wasnât amazing either. With that, the Tempo was put aside.
Reasons for elimination- design and engineering for the most part were okay, but the adaptive dampers and semi-active sway bars are a bit questionable in this kind of car, and overall felt a little too sporty. Itâs also at the bottom for drivability, has below average efficiency, has not great trim reliability, and itâs expensive, both to buy and service. For those reasons, itâs out.
Mons Instinct City- @cake_ape
Next up on the list was the Instinct City. The sales team found the design on the boring side, but didnât think it was bad. Reading more about it however, they found that it didnât necessarily have enough grunt, average practicality despite its size, below average safety, and it was a hair expensive to service. With that, the sales team struck it off their list.
Reasons for elimination- design was fine but Iâm not a fan of the front, and it was below or just average in several areas (safety, practicality, SVC, etc), and with that plus being right on the price limit, itâs just not very worth it. For those reasons, itâs out.
Schnell L50 LSi- @interior
Reasons for elimination- Iâm just gonna review this one as me because boy thereâs a lot wrong here, youâve mixed materials for the engine but did it backwards, could run on 85 octane and have octane leftover, has some of the worst efficiency Iâve seen, a god-awful turbo tune, a bad and clunky design, the highest service costs of the entire competition, and uhh this:
Pictures Taken Seconds Before Disaster
Shouldnât have to say this, but yeah, itâs out.
Pikemen Seguir EXT- @HybridTronny
Next up is the Pikemen Seguir. The sales team liked the design, but thought it was somewhat dated in spots. Reading on however, they found that the Seguir was expensive in more ways than one, not very safe, and has somewhat low reliability. With that, they struck it off the list.
Reasons for elimination- so despite your very high drivability and efficiency, the use of active/semi-active suspension bits to get said drivability wouldnât happen irl, you were a bit heavy on the negative quality to fit said active suspension parts under the trim ET limit, safety is on the low side, and itâs expensive (both in terms of purchase price and SVC) for being somewhat mediocre outside of the two good stats I mentioned. For those reasons, itâs out.
Eagleye Quarx- @Prium
Next up on the list was the Eagleye Quarx. The sales team found the name a little tacky, and like the Pikemen, thought the design looked a bit dated, but still nice. Reading on however, they found that it too is expensive to service, isnât the safest, has below average efficiency, and isnât very comfortable. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is okay and not fussy, but a hair on the dated side. On the engineering side of things however, the use of active suspension components and ITBs is questionable, the engine is making peak power at redline, SVC is high, and efficiency is a bit below average. For those reasons, itâs out.
Joyeux Silure- @CriticalSet9849
Next is the Joyeux Silure. The sales team was somewhat put off by the design, but thought some aspects were okay. Reading on, they found that it wasnât super practical, expensive to service, and just were put off by it. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- man this thing looks weird, the front especially. As for engineering, as I said itâs got below average practicality, is on the expensive side to service, and the active suspension components you have are a bit questionable. For those reasons, itâs out.
IP Dryad- @Knugcab
Next up was the IP Dryad. The sales team was somewhat bored by the design, the smushed front being a particular sore point. Reading on, they found that it wasnât particularly easy to drive, has below average efficiency and practicality, and it isnât the most comfortable thing in the world. With that, they struck it off the list.
Reasons for elimination- the design is a bit boring and awkward in spots, as I said it isnât very efficient, has poor drivability, and it isnât very practical. Thereâs not really anything wrong with it, it just was outmatched. For those reasons, itâs out.
IMP Regata- @BG004130
Next was the IMP Regata. The sales team found the design boring, but didnât hate it. Reading on, they found that it doesnât drive very nice, and that itâs very loud, gets below average efficiency, and low practicality despite being a wagon. With that, they struck it off their list.
Reasons for elimination- design leaves a lot to be desired, itâs entirely too powerful for the competiton, drivability isnât very good, below average efficiency, somewhat low practicality, and it has a very loud engine. For those reasons, itâs out.
Wells Apex- @DuceTheTruth100
Next was the Wells Apex. The sales team werenât huge fans of the design, with a really busy front, and nothing going on out back. Reading on, they found that it isnât great to drive, has poor efficiency, and that itâs expensive to service. With that, they struck it off the list.
Reasons for elimination- A frankly weird design with way too much going on up front, and nothing going on out back, bad drivability and efficiency, and high SVC. For those reasons, itâs out.
MAHG Delta Familiale- @S31
Next up was the MAHG Delta. The sales team wasnât a huge fan of the overly rugged design, and didnât think it worked for Biocrystâs image very well. Reading on, they found that it wasnât the most efficient and a bit on the expensive side for what it offered. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- overly rugged LL Bean reject design doesnât really do it for me, just average in a lot of areas (like efficiency, reliability, SVC), and it felt way too compromise-y just to fit AWD in, which was unnecessary here. For those reasons, itâs out.
OwO Unbinable- @ImKaeR
Next up was the OwO Unbinable. The sales team were confused by the name, and more confused by the design. Reading on, they found that it was expensive to service, wasnât the best driver, and it wasnât particularly practical. With that, they cut it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- well this is ironic, but the below average practicality, average drivability and high SVC hurt you here, plus it was expensive to buy for what it offered. For those reasons, itâs out.
Saidenki Rikan- @EnCR
Next up was the Saidenki Rikan. The sales team thought the design was fine, nothing to complain about. Reading on, they found that it had below average practicality, reliability was kinda low, and that it was expensive to service. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- low practicality, average reliability, high SVC, ITBs and semi-active suspension components. For those reasons, itâs out.
Winthorpe Round Zero Turbo 2000- @pcmoreno
Reviewing this one as myself because yeah, nah. Reasons for elimination- well itâs certainly a design, a badly tuned flat-6 turbo with a garbage spool and garbage efficiency, tires that end in zero and that are staggered by 10mm for some reason, awful reliability, way expensive to service. Shouldnât need to say this, but itâs out.
Pusilanime Polymorphous Pousette- @Maxbombe
Next was the Polymorphous. The sales team wasnât in love with the design, feeling that itâs a bit too retro-y, but they didnât hate it. Reading on, they found that it had below average practicality, so-so efficiency, and middling safety and comfort. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- Design is fine but itâs too much of a retro callback in my opinion, itâs just average in a lot of ways, and ITBs and an eLSD are very questionable here. For those reasons, itâs out.
Mara Kavaler CL- @AndiD
Next up is the Mara Kavaler. The sales team didnât like the design at all, feeling that it looked cartoon-y almost. Reading on, they found that it was just average in many ways, and not really succeeding in any particular category. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- gonna be frank; the design is bad, with no sense of elegance and an overly high ride height, a 5-speed auto in 2018 is an unwise choice, average stats in basically every category minus SVC and reliability. Cheap is fine, but not when even cheaper cars can outclass you. For those reasons, itâs out.
Manda Harmony Z-line- @RAZR
Also reviewing this one as myself, because yeah. First of all, design is fine but it just looks like a Honda, it revs way too high and makes way too much power, has the worst efficiency of the entire competition, bad drivability, doesnât use all of its octane, a journal bearing turbo that literally never spools, a vLSD for some reason, ITBs with a performance intake, light AHS steel, oversteer and staggered wheels, itâs very loud, and awful reliability. For those reasons, itâs out.
Galaxie Aero150- @Kyorg
Next is the Galaxy Aero150. The sales team mostly liked the design, but found the front too squished.
Reading on, they found that its engine struggles along a bit and has fade-y brakes, and the safety is on the low side. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is generally good, front is a little awkward though. Engineering is okay, but the turbo tune is a bit strange (namely the intercooler), thereâs a bit too much brake fade in my opinion, and you have active sway bars on an economy car. For those reasons, itâs out.
Axion ONE 1.8TCi- @BannedByAndroid
Next was the Axion ONE. The sales team thought it was okay, but the front design is strange, and the rear wheels are too tucked in. Reading on, they found that it isnât great to drive, isnât super reliable, and expensive to service and buy. With that, they cut it off the list.
Reasons for elimination- I know you were trying to emulate Lynk&Co with this, but A) not the best body for it, and B) it isnât a great emulation of it. Engineering is fine, but you have low drivability, low trim reliability, below average fuel economy, and itâs expensive to service. For those reasons, itâs out.
Hoashi AMISA Js- @asami
Next up was the Hoashi AMISA. The sales team wasnât blown away by the design, but thought it was fine. Reading on, they found that it wasnât great to drive, has poor reliability and practicality, low safety, and itâs expensive to service.
Reasons for elimination- design that doesnât seem fully fleshed out, a fully aluminum construction with -11 quality on driving aids and power steering to offset the ET, a poorly tuned turbo, -4 on the fuel system for some strange reason, bad reliability, bad drivability, bad practicality, high SVC, and low safety. For those reasons, itâs out.
Orion TE-25 Premium- @Borisu
Next up was the Orion TE-25. The sales team thought the design was okay, if not particularly exciting. Reading on, they found that it was expensive to service, not very great to drive, and has below average fuel economy. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design was fine, just not terribly exciting. Engineering was mostly okay, but -5 on engine internals is questionable, LFCs wouldâve netted you more efficiency, engine is kinda big and underpowered considering its displacement, poor drivability, very high SVC, below average fuel economy, and active sway bars on an economy car. For those reasons, itâs out.
Bergmann SLF Plus- @Mikonp7
Next up was the Bergmann SLF Plus. The sales team didnât care for the smushed front, but thought the rest of the design was fine. Reading on, they found that the SLF was very expensive to service, isnât super reliable, just average fuel economy and driving dynamics. With that, they cut it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is weird up front, being smushed and too busy. Engineering is so-so, with just average fuel economy and drivability, poor trim reliability, very high SVC, active and semi-active suspension components for some reason, a vLSD for some reason, and overly fancy interior choices for the competition. For those reasons, itâs out.
Alira Bolinas âPolar Oppositesâ- @HelloHi
Next up was the Alira Bolinas. The sales team didnât really care for the design, feeling that it was too busy. Reading on, they found that it was very expensive to service, just average driving dynamics and fuel economy, and that it wasnât super reliable. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is way too busy everywhere but the rear. Engineering is fine generally speaking, but itâs the third most expensive car to service in the entire competition, has low trim reliability, average drivability and fuel economy, and the engine revs way higher than it should, which affects your engine reliability. For those reasons, itâs out.
Arco Civetta Bebop- @Portalkat42
Next up is the Arco Civetta Bebop. The sales team liked itâs cutesy, quintessentially European styling, and had no major complaints there. Reading on, they found that the Civetta is very expensive to service, has middling reliability and comfort, and found that it wasnât particularly safe, nor did it offer a truly compelling package for its price. With that, it was cut from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is good and very Italian, no complaints there. Engineering is questionable in areas, with the second highest service costs of the entire competition, middling reliability on both sides of the car, semi-active suspension components, and a very high-revving engine with ITBs that would be better suited in a sports car, not an economy sedan. For those reasons, itâs out.
Hanno Colazza- @mat1476 and @mcp928
Next up is the Hanno Colazza. The sales team liked the design, but felt it was too high up visually. Reading on, they learned that the Colazza is the only car on the list with a V6, but itâs a bit underpowered, and fuel economy is well below average. They also found that it has middling drivability, a hair on the expensive side to service, and it isnât particularly comfortable. With that, they struck it from the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is good as to be expected, no complaints besides it riding too high visually. Engineering was mostly good, and I applaud the choice to go with a V6, but a turbo 4 would produce just as much power, be more efficient, and fit better in the competition. Itâs also a bit expensive to service, fuel economy is well below average, and just isnât amazing everywhere else (besides reliability), so for those reasons, itâs out.
Haruta DT4- @Tsundere-kun
Last on their list for today is the Haruna DT4. The sales team liked the design, but thought that it was a hair busy in the front. Reading on, they found that it has just average reliability, so-so practicality, below average safety, and that itâs expensive to service. With that, they struck it off the list.
Reasons for elimination- design is okay, but the front is too busy for my tastes. Engineering is alright, but itâs expensive to service, has just average practicality, adaptive and active suspension components, and a vLSD for some reason. For those reasons, itâs out.
Moving to Phase 2:
@abg7
@Serperior98
@Riley and @Ryan93
@Falling_Comet
@desperatedonut5
@Maverick74
@S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
@donutsnail
@Elizipeazie
@Urke101
@Quneitra
@66mazda
@I_expect_nothing
@ARM_Tune
@Xepy
@the-chowi
@vouge
29 Likes
Darn, didnât know there were a dedicated tab in Automation for that
Is pinged
Eliminations
Scrolls faster
âMoving to Phase 2â
Man my emotions run away every time. Thereâs a few surprise bins for me but thereâs always a few. Good luck to the rest of you! 
6 Likes
Sort of predicted outcome. For lore reasons, the car was already old by 2018 and actually due for replacement in 2019 so I was pretty sure that more modern competitors were going to surpass it. 
4 Likes
Wait, I passed round 1?! I think this is the first time in a CSR that Iâve made it this far, haha.
Good luck everyone!
2 Likes
Expected it because my laptop broke and I had to fix it for most of the challenge and had to rush the entry just before the deadline so whatever.
Anyway, great job for those who did qualify and what a challenge.
Well, at least I didnât fall at either of the first two hurdles. Good luck to everyone still in contention!
2 Likes