Ok. 6th not too bad. Very close to the top 4. Too bad I would have liked a review as I know my car rocks enough. You can make fun of its offroad capability but you will be happy to have it if your car gets stuck in de mud.
Woot, 13th and Cheapest!
Loved the reference to the Baltazar.
It’s a 3L V8!
And mine has a 1.6L I4! It still only gets 70 bhp, but it’s not a 1.5!
I’m pretty happy to finish in the top half - and I see I’m still getting the #1 slot for fuel economy. Three cheers for super-lean fuel mixtures!
Ugh… I’m really tired and sick today, so I made a few clerical errors.
I’ve corrected them (mostly engine displacements). But there was a pretty big one - I had forgotten to put in the 8th place car.
And Packbat… sorry, they actually got better fuel economy than you by .2 MPG. So you don’t take the crown on that this time around.
Ugh, I missed the deadline. Oh, well…
Ah, well - at least I came in second. 
8th - DMA F80 - 2.3L I4/4AT RWD - “You’ll stop more frequently a gas stations for snacks than actual gas.” - 5 deductions, 9239 pts
Considering that I was going for high fuel economy, low maintenance, high reliability, high safety, and was seeing how close to $8000 I could get I am surprised I didn’t take more.
Which means there are some darn good cars I was up against. Good job everyone.
What kind of reliability numbers did you put up, Zabhawkin? I had a 67.0 reliability in the competition version and $1441.44/yr maintenance costs, according to the .lua file.
Reliability 63.4
Service costs 1169.63 (not lowest 
)
41.4 drivability
40.9 Comfort
50.4 Safety
29.9 mpg (highest 
)
7993.98 Total cost (not highest )
I wonder if I would have done better with a front wheel drive car.
…huh. Your maintenance costs are a lot less than mine, but I had 45.8 drivability, 54.0 Safety, and $6896.84 Total Costs. I guess the 31.5 Comfort is what actually killed it in the competition.
Actually, the cars that ALMOST made it were all very good, but fell short in two heavily weighted categories: Utility and Practicality. Zab’s entry, other than being sorely lacking in those two categories, was quite fantastic.
I should have gone for the ladder chassis!
I thought those were average weighting, so I didn’t pay them as much attention.
My bad… yes, they were weighted normally, BUT… they were some pretty easy figures to make big changes in for little cost (like 40-50 point improvements). I’m trying to remember if it’s 2 or 3 ladder frames that ended up in the finals.
If anyone wants to take a look at it, here is my wagon that ended up on the final. It has nothing too special about it, thus my expectations weren’t really high.
BTW, yes, I have had to send it to Vic 3 times in order for it to work.
In retrospect the ladder frame seems like a very obvious one. Ah well.
Congrats to the top 4!
Honestly this time I had higher hopes than 22nd…
I knew the Rado Carrier was not great.
1980 offer: New deal on Rado IV! Get a GTS, a Turbo, or a Premium model and receive 25% off price tag! They are going fast! (Rado’s early 80s ad campaign focused on the Rado IV, the Rado Carrier was never advertised.)
I wonder how close the next ‘cheepest’ car was, the Famsed was only $5883