CSR 154 - Round 0
(instabins)
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.
