1980 Somboy Sembra GTi Hatchback
Feels German.
Looks Cyberpunk.
Sounds Italian.
Must be Japanese!
4 Likes
New for 1980, the Clari Voyageb! Equipped with many new innovations, including vented disc brakes, a super advanced automatic gearbox, and electronic fuel injection! 28.3 combined miles per gallon! Incredible.
For only $15,400. Clari Voyageb.
3 Likes
Yeah I’m gonna need to purchase one right now please thanks
Subs closed. Additional entries received from:
@lotto77, who still needs to shoot us an ad;
@Vento
@Restomod
@ldub0775
@S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
@Madrias
@DrDoomD1scord
and
@GetWrekt01 & @ACoolCrab
Contact me if I missed ya. Bins to come out within the weekend.
9 Likes
is anyone even going to read this? I guess I'll just put a spaceship here (_)(_)=====D~~
The 1980 SM41 Planar Owlsa XG
The new SM41 series Owlsa gives you all the looks of our upmarket Danazine, at a much more mass-market price.
With a 3L RX60 flat six making 133 hp, the Owlsa XG sips fuel while providing ample performance, and a 4 speed automatic to make highway cruising and city driving a breeze.
The interior is very comfortable, with our signature premium blue vinyl upholstery paired with features such as a premium 8-track player with four speakers and AM/FM, hydraulic power steering, and advanced safety features.
Available now for $17,500 AMU, contact your nearest Planar showroom for a test drive.
13 Likes
Top Row: Hamman Mallett Mk IV @TanksAreTryhards ; Sakura Olivia F80 @Danicoptero ; ZIĆ 344 @moroza ;
Bergmann Diech GT @Mikonp7 ; Markley Galivanter Quadratrac @Maverick74 ; Primus Astrona 250iA @Happyhungryhippo
Bottom Row: Somboy Sembra GTi 2.5 @Restomod ; Elkridge Dreadnought @Techerov ; N Motors Proton @Driftphantom ; YAG Akumb @Rise_Comics ; Luma Middy @randomBullets ; Canmo Gannet LE @crwpitman1
In 1980, NHTSA and EPA mandatory recalls and sales bars were placed on several mass-market vehicles; As a customer looking for as little trouble as possible, Tony - the man behind the professional wrestling character Mike Maverick - will not consider any of them for purchase.
The Hamman Mallett Mk IV, Sakura Olivia F80, ZIĆ 344 and Bergmann Diech GT were recalled due to verified catastrophic failures of their engine mounts. Such issues are not usually common, but there’s been a slew of them as many manufacturers now use softer mounts to make vibrations less noticeable.
(The real reason for my instabinning these vehicles is that they all use a transverse engine layout with a boxer engine. This layout was never used in real life due to the serious serviceability problems of such a layout in real life; every front-drive car with such engine has been longitudinal. While it’s probably not at all impossble to mount a boxer engine atop a transaxle transversely - but I still consider this a violation of CSR-style realism.)
Individual notes
@TanksAreTryhards This car is actually very statistically competitive, with very high drivability, reliability, safety, comfort etc. - as well as the second best fuel economy of all entries. It would be equally as competitive as a longitudinal FWD car, though at marginally higher cost. And it looks good, too.
@Danicoptero And it’s a similar story here. One of the better compacts of the competition and sporting the best fuel economy around, it’s just a realistic configuration and a less “meh” exterior away from real competitiveness.
@moroza The stats on this entry are generally competent - except for an unacceptably-low safety score. However, the vantablack-looking paint and the poorly-executed front grille let down the exterior; and it gets another strike against the rules due to an incorrectly named engine. Shame, too; Ćeburaśka is a shot straight to my childhood.
@Mikonp7 Apart from the weird engine config, this car is also among the most unreliable in this competition. This is partly a result of 17 unused techpool points and an all-alu engine. Other questionable engineering decisions include barely any overdrive on the gearbox and 55 cam profile - tremendously dragging down the fuel economy.
The Markley Galivanter, Primus Astrona and Canmo Gannet stand guilty of certification irregularities, and are barred until those are resolved. The former two manufacturers in particular were reported by the EPA for not submitting example cars for 1980 emission testing (Wrong trim year); the Canmo, meanwhile, had a different engine during certification (Engine family name incorrect).
Individual notes
@Maverick74 This car wasn’t a winner, but it was a contender - so the rule breach is a shame. Since it was a clear and intentional reimagining of an AMC Eagle, I don’t have any recommendations on how to improve the car while keeping it ‘authentic’.
@Happyhungryhippo The Astrona is a relatively good-looking and solidly competitive entry. However, it is hobbled somewhat by the costly yet not very helpful decision to use individual throttle bodies on its engines - and the questionable realism of its staggered (175/195) tire combination.
@crwpitman Not very reliable; not very drivable; not very economical; not very comfortable; and yet, almost at the limit of pricing. Perhaps the expensive premium cassette entertainment is to blame or maybe the sixth seat. And while there are unique styling ideas in the design, they are simply not executed well.
The Luma Middy and YAG Akumb were subjected to a mandatory recall due to missing body fasteners. (They use Legacy Bodies - explicitly forbidden in the brief.)
Individual notes
@randomBullets This car excels at nothing at all bar cornering due to grossly oversized tires. I’d have to start a whole thread on how many questionable engineering choices are wrapped into it. But most significantly, all the money is spent on expensive engineering choices with not quality points distributed at all.
@Rise_Comics This one’s a madshow. AM$33400 in cost and packing a turbo-5 ostensibly making 338 hp - yet the car manages to be far slower than the vastly less powerful cars in the competition due to a horrifying boost threshold. And to top it all off, the car was submitted twice without prompt or permit. I suggest brushing up on both automation and rule-reading skills before entering any further challenge - CSR or otherwise.
The Somboy Sembra GTi, Elkridge Dreadnought and N Motors Proton have been barred from sale due to toxic materials allegedly being used in their construction, and declared unsafe to be seated in. (Techpool threshold exceeded as all 5 cars use the default 5-everywhere distribution)
Individual notes
@Restomod This entry is generally competently built, techpool issue notwithstanding, but it’s inefficient in its construction (I mean, twin-throttle body performance intake on a 120hp 2.5l V6?). It also has the lowest comfort stat as one of just 2 cars under 20 - and nuking a 3-star priority was never going to be a good idea. Not that everybody who nuked the 4-star drivability and reliability requirements paid that any mind.
@Techerov Some of the most misguided suspension tuning in the competition, with rock-hard springs and shocks and huge terminal oversteer. Brakes fadey yet overpowered. Quality not utilized. There are many areas that feel phoned in, but I think the problem with this build is just a general lack of experience - which could be easily rectified if this user were to join the Automation discord.
@Driftphantom Once again, no quality used throughout the car. This trend really needs to go. As a result, the reliability is abysmal as is the comfort. The V8 is hellishly oversquare, with bore that’s more than double the stroke, making it very heavy and inefficient. It is fed by four ecocarbs - further hampering reliability - and transmits power through a non-overdriven automatic, leading to a horrendous 10.9 mpg of economy. Like with the Elkridge, the N Motors’ creator could use some tutoring, because I can only assume the mistakes made here were made due to inexperience.
24 Likes
Was there any way I could have known that in advance?
2 Likes
Yes, if you had read up on the type of vehicle and engine you were making. Which, in CSR and other ‘big’ competitions, is kind of expected.
10 Likes
Read up where?
It’s usually places like Wikipedia that people read about this stuff. Users that frequent the community’s discord server can also get information about things like this from each other.
Based on what I’ve read - inluding but far more than Wikipedia - and what I’ve learned as a professional mechanic 13-some years, I agree with the game designers that this layout is entirely possible. Your otherwise detailed rules don’t mention it. So where, other than though word of mouth on a different site than this forum, was I supposed to know that CSR realism was restricted to engine layouts that were actually historically mass-produced?
Well, like I said, it’s possible - just not usually viable. This is CSR, and understanding of vehicle history and real-life considerations is expected. End of line.
6 Likes
How realism is judged can very from host to host. some are massive sticklers on what was actually produced in the era and others are a bit more flexible as long as the design is believable. The best rule of thumb is when you have a layout or engineering choice that on first glance may seem relatively unrealistic, but is a quirk of your car’s brand, is to actively mention that it is a lore feature. I have a brand called Midlands that’s whole thing is they make sensible, rear engined cars waaay after rear engine fell out of fashion irl. However, I actively push that this is a branding choice in my forum write ups as a way to make hosts aware of it. It’s up to the host at that point how they judge it against their own realism expectations. Just picking a quirky layout because it gives better stats usually ends up with a realism bin or is labeled as minmaxing and also ends in a bin.
7 Likes
17 Likes
Reality was considered and the engine even adjusted to fit. History and real-life considerations, many of them worn into my knuckles, were taken into account. All the detailed rules I could find were, as well. This engine layout (actually a flat-8 AWD transverse layout) was one of the major design projects I did for some engineering courses at school; it was not chosen for its stats alone. It’s my responsibility to follow the rules. It’s your responsibility to state them clearly.
It’s a tough lesson to learn, but CSR realism does mean realism. People get thingy over less common but still used layouts like longitudinal FF, just because it is a rare and weird layout. Something never made like transverse boxer is a surefire way to draw ire from hosts.
There’s two main things to remember here, a good part of challenges is playing to the host’s wants and desires, and that CSR is the flagship challenge, and there’s a lot expected of you because of that, and almost nobody gets it right the first time. Hell, I’m still amazed when I’m not instabinned!
13 Likes
Realism and history are two different things.
I don’t have a beef with the rules, I have a problem with the lack of disclosure.
Aye I’m not out yet! That’s a surprise
4 Likes
My god this always happens with people who haven’t done csr before.
I would say have a look through the bin stages of the last couple of csr challenges and see why people were eliminated and it’ll be quite a few similar things of strange choices or bad engineering
8 Likes
They are related things. There is a reason boxer engines were not usually mounted transversely in real life: It takes more space with the engine’s comparatively huge width. This is not very well-reflected in Automation because stroke has no bearing on engine size in the game. But in reality, it would be difficult to mount and even worse to service than a longitudinal boxer - another thing not well reflected by the game.
Either way, my decision is final.
10 Likes