Engine on the Wrong Side - [DONE]

Engine on the Wrong Side


Our customer for this challenge is David, an aspiring filmmaker who enjoys unique things. He’s now looking for a new car that is fun and comfortable to drive while not being too expensive to buy or maintain, but he also wants something special.

The car has to be a rear engined and he doesn’t want a Porsche 911 or something that looks like one (it’s not like he can afford one anyways). Any type of car is welcome as long as it has the engine behind the rear axle.

OOC: The reason I don’t want to get 911s is to get more variety, if you send me one I won’t bin you but I’m going to make sure your car doesn’t win no matter how good it is.



  • Model year: 1985 or earlier, Trim year: 1985
  • Rear engine is mandatory
  • Car has to be road legal: Wipers, headlights, tail lights, brake lights, indicators, reversing lights, an external fuel cap and a rear number plate are required
  • No semi slicks
  • Interiors: Won’t be judged
  • Seats: At least 2 full seats in the front row
  • Toe: Minimum -0.4, maximum +0.4
  • Legacy and open wheel bodies are banned
  • Advanced settings: Wheel width, wheel diameter, tyre width, tyre diameter, and camber are banned; the engine has to stay behind the rear axle; and ride height can be adjusted by +/- 4.
  • Max price: $25,000


  • Family year: 1985 or earlier, Variant year: 1985
  • Fuel: 91 unleaded or 92 leaded
  • Loudness: 55 maximum
  • Must pass WES 6
  • No racing parts
  • No V16 engines


  • Techpool: everything at +5
  • The challenge will take place on the Open Beta
  • Realism isn’t very important, but make something that could exist.
  • Don’t make a Porsche 911


Sportiness and Comfort
The car has to be fun to drive but also be comfortable ride.
(60% sportiness and 40% comfort)

Rear engined cars can be a handful, but try making it as easy to drive as possible. If I see terminal oversteer you’re going to lose a lot of points.

Service Costs
Staggered tires and crammed engine bays are common in these cars, but try to keep it reasonable.


Fuel Economy
Having to refuel more means spending more on fuel, let’s try to avoid that.

Purchase Price
Lower is better, but a our customer is willing to spend more if the car is worth it.

A car that breaks often is both annoying and expensive.

It doesn’t need to have Volvo level safety, but avoid making a death trap.

Extra points if you manage to get a second seat row.

Good engineering is more important here, but a better design is also nice.

Inspirations (For design only):

Skoda Rapid 136

DMC Delorean

Renault Alpine GTA

Tatra 613

If someone can think of other good examples I’ll add them to the inspirations.


  • Model name: EWS - your username
  • Family name: EWS - your username
  • Trim name: Free
  • Variant name: Free
  • Submissions will open on Saturday, 21st October at 00:00 CEST
  • Submissions will close on Sunday, 29th October at 23:59 CEST
  • You need to submit your .car file to me via forum DMs and post an ad in this thread.


  • Specified game version (Open Beta)
  • Changed toe limits
  • Allowed more options on advanced settings
  • Raised the engine loudness limit

So will this challenge be hosted in the open beta or the stable version of the game?

And if on the ob, will there be any limitation on toe settings in the suspension tab? Currently there’s no cost (neither in material nor service costs) for toe, which allows one to really abuse that suspension setting.

I’m assuming 4.3 open beta only - and in that version, revised weight distribution calculations have made rear- and mid-engined cars more viable.

Why? I can see wheel width being banned, but banning offset adjustment is ouch, due to the fact that a lot of RR cars use mac struts on the front, which notoriously in game are offset really far out with no way other than advanced trim to bring them inward. There are also bits in there like wheel center offset that do absolutely nothing in terms of stats or disguising other wheel sizes for stats purposes. They just allow for style manipulation. The only things in the wheel and tyre tabs in advanced trim that you need to regulate are wheel width, wheel diameter, tyre width, tyre diameter, and camber. All of those have actual tuning counterparts that make large statistical difference. The rest are mostly aesthetically driven and wouldn’t have strong stat implications if they were in other tabs. Ride height should be increased to +/- 4 as well, for similar reasons of deleting rake from bodies.

This amount of toe is woefully inadequate for RR builds in game. It should be increased to +/- .3 or .35. For reference Ford C-max, a fwd hatchback, has .2 toe on at least one of its axels. Limiting a RR sports/sporting car to less toe than a tame hatchback will not produce the levels of sportiness you’re hoping for in entries.

I would also give us some more techpool if you’re wanting sports cars, but i do understand wanting easy legality checking.


I would really like to have some leeway in wheel advanced trim as well - just so i could make my tires look more old-timey, all round and blown up.

EDIT: Moreover, 45 enginer loudness limit is ludicrous now. The devs themselves said that 60 is not atypical for a roadgoing sports car.

  1. why would there be a material cost to toe settings? It’s not like they actually add more material to change the angle of the car’s tyres. 2) Limiting toe is counter productive to having a rear engined car challenge. It’s literally how they have been made more viable in game. Only when you start getting into ridiculous values of toe (+/- .6 or more) that there is really any extra SVCs that would need to be factored in. Even economy cars run around .2 toe and we don’t really care about extra tyre wear at that point.

Oh god my time has come, time to make one of my chronically strange Japanese things…

It’s on the open beta.

Right now the toe limits are at +/- 0.15 because as Maverick says, toe has no effect on svc currently. I chose that limit to be the same as QFC33 and LHC, but I’ll increase it to +/- 0.4 to be more appropiate.

To be honest I’m not very familiar with advanced settings, but I’m fine with giving more freedom. Only wheel width, wheel diameter, tyre width, tyre diameter, and camber will be banned, and ride height can be adjusted to +/- 4.

Techpool stays at +5, this is meant to be a quicker challenge.

Agreed, I’ll raise the limit to 55. I went too safe with the loudness limit .


What would you consider to be reasonable service costs for a car like this?

It depends on what other people submit. I don’t look at cars in a vacuum, I compare them to the other entries.

If your car has $1500 SVC and the average is $2000, you’ll get a good score; but if the average is $1000 SVC you’ll get a lower score in that stat.


My first test mule for this cost $19.5k AMU, weighed 924kg, and was powered by a 160bhp all-alloy 2.0l F4, with struts all around. It was built on the small Commoner body set, but had 4 full seats, and surprisingly low sub-$1k service costs.

What size car were you building tho? And is it carbed? both larger cars(so more engine bay space) and carbs can produce sup $1k SVCs, but it’s rare if you’re using anything other than standard interior bits and medium tyres. Most RR builds hover between $1000 and $1500 in my experience.

A small one with a wheelbase of 2.4m, tires that are 165mm wide up front and 205mm wide in the rear, standard interior and cassette tape deck, but not power steering or ABS.

The body set I used ('84 Commoner) also has a surprisingly large engine bay in RR configuration.

Working at around 1300 SVC at the moment
probably should make it cheaper though

although my car is kinda small at 2.3m and costs about 15000

lol. current build i have is a 2.6 wheelbase (visually extended 2.5 crown vic body) with 225s all around and sport/premium interior. Debating on making it a standard Midlands Ceres GTC or making it some high power special edition.

Yeah same here, sport interior w premium cassette on the Manta coupe body

Ok current submission

Passes all the current things i think

Rear engine all wheel drive funni-mobile


Submissions are open

You can only submit once, so make sure to double check the rules before you do.


1985 LVC LR24 2.0

Essentially an answer to the question “what if the LVC LF2 had been a sleek rear-engined aero blob that came out two years earlier?”

960kg. 150bhp (on regular unleaded). 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and a top speed of 135 mph. 0.95 lateral g and 60-0 in 35m. All wrapped up in a sleek, futuristic, and aerodynamic coupe body that’s small on the outside and big enough on the inside for four adults. And it’s a steal at $13,700 AMU. Need we say more? It’s no 911 or Alpine, but it will have no problem whatsoever keeping up with either of them on a B-road.


My second entry in this forum.
Notagolf rallysport 1500