PART 3.1 - THE ONES THAT DIDN’T REALLY MAKE IT
OK, since this is not a CSR style challenge my original plan was to dump all of the rankings at once. But eh. I could as well leave top 5 for later, to build up some tension. So, meanwhile. Here is the ranking of the cars that didn’t really make it to top 5.
Also, this might upset some people, but I haven’t been purely looking into scores here. Sometimes, I have still felt that a car either had something that pure Automation numbers could not reflect, that made it deserve a somewhat higher rank. In other cases, the cars have felt a bit more flawed than their numbers suggests. However, this is not adjustments that have affected the ranking at the top, where the winners have been quite clear…
#24 - Arnoc Nexum GT - @PhirmEggplant
Sorry, I try to not be rude but this car is generally a mess. We can start with the design. You are using techpool to unlock the Honda Civic body (unlock year 1984) in 1980. Since 1980 still is mostly left in the 70s design wise, using a too modern body requires lots of skill to pull off without looking too modern in a challenge where design realism has priority. There IS a good example, we will see it later on, but this generally looks more like 1990 than 1980. For the most part. But the headlights you are using is modern stuff with projectors and LED (which generally doesn’t even look good as Automation vanilla fixtures), that didn’t even exist in science fiction in 1980, they are like at least 25 years too new, if not 30. Also, the stubby proportions makes it look like a clown car (sorry, but it does), and the tail looks like a very bad ripoff of a late 80s Opel Kadett convertible, except for the taillights, that looks really messy because you have shrunken down the fixture that has a square pattern, so now they look like miniature mosaic or something. No interior worth mentioning in this case.
As for the engineering. Well. 60 degree V8 is an odd choice if you don’t have to, but I decided to not care too much about that. The performance is generally nothing you can complain about (highest top speed, rest of the figures except one decent), it has the best cornering ability, brakes are decent, all that in the lower price range. Well. That was the positive stuff. For the negative…it is not very prestigeous, mediocre sportiness despite the performance and cornering abilities, acceleration 0-100 actually among the slower cars, it has by far the worst comfort, the worst safety, low reliability, the worst fuel economy, and the highest service costs of all cars.
One question. Is this car mainly tuned to be fun in Beam NG? I somehow get that impression and that doesn’t always equal good Automation stats, unfortunately.
#23 - Ting Luchtaine GT Turbocharged - @supersaturn77
This car is the proof why you can’t go only by Automation stats. Because it actually didn’t do that bad, and yet it has a really bad engineering flaw. A flaw so bad that it either was a realism bin or ending up here that was the alternatives, and I decided that giving it a proper review was at least somewhat nicer…
You see the dotted line here? Well, it is the power the engine would make as naturally aspirated. The line below it is the power it makes with a turbo…
…below it. I think it’s pretty obvious that a turbo that lowers the power output for most of the register isn’t the way to go. Now, don’t consult me for turbo tuning because there is better people at that on this board, but this turbo basically acts like a jake brake for most of the register and only starts to spool just before redline.
Other than that, I am not a huge fan of the upside-down bathtub styling, and somewhat messy decor. I do like that you tried out something original, though, and I like some details like the two piece rear window. I think even the body shape could have worked with some more work put into it, but it is what it is now. The interior styling is much better than the exterior, I like it very much actually.
Performance is mediocre (well, blame the turbo tuning), comfort and safety not very good. But it scores high on sportiness and driveability, as well as fuel economy, but it eats up the whole budget. Just building the engine naturally aspirated would probably have made the car better in every way and it could have ended up somewhat high, though not in the top, then.
Sorry.
#22 - Lightstar Deimos 400SP - @Elouda
Another car where I don’t agree with the Automation stats. It has the best sportiness, very good performance and very high levels of safety. The service costs aren’t bloody either. But a car should also work as a concept on the whole. Its driveability is low (and deserves to be downgraded even more with its terminal oversteer), so is the comfort and the whole car feels just slapped together. Its styling is basically just a bunch of fixtures on a body not very sporty to start with, and that is morphed to almost front wheel drive 2 door sedan proportions. Again, I start to wonder if this is a car mainly tuned for Beam, since it usually shows up as messy Automation stats.
That would not be an excuse for the exercise in origami that is the tail on this car though…
#21 - Hammardiin Farvarg V8 3.3 - @xsneakyxsimx
OK, you managed to do the overall worst car that actually could be taken seriously. Is that a merit or not? I don’t know.
Nah, but seriously, I can appreciate the bold move of doing a front wheel drive grand tourer, even if it didn’t reach all the way forward. But I think you aimed a bit low. The prestige is low, so is the sportiness and comfort, while front wheel drive didn’t really get driveability to any high levels. It’s a bit like if you have gotten the bad parts of FWD without getting the good ones.
It has the lowest service costs, gets among the best mileage and sells for a low price. Frankly put, not what a buyer in this class would care all that much about. It should also be said that safety and performance aren’t bad at all for this price point.
The styling, well, it is not very exciting or sporty. A bit forward thinking maybe, but not enough to look totally out of place, I get some E30 and Biturbo vibes (but more boring, sorry) so around 1983 it would at least not have been out of place. But both the exterior and interior styling suggests that this is not really a car with the class a buyer like this would be looking for. Which is honestly what the Automation stats says too.
#20 - Pheonix Claymore LX - @bang6111
Argh, the Corolla E90 body again.
No, the thing is that I hold a grudge against this body since you can unlock it without techpool in 1980, with techpool even by the late 70s and that is just…wrong. In some cases it starts to work around 1982, but still circa 1985-86 is in many cases the earliest I would go.
Still, I must say that this isn’t the worst work I have seen being done on it. It’s even interesting with some of the retro touches like hidden headlamps, but it doesn’t backdate it enough unfortunately.
With that said, I like the interior, since it is futurism from this era like it should look like, unlike the body.
Prestige and performance is low, sportiness, comfort and driveability “low mid”, safety, reliability and fuel economy mid, while it has low service costs and sells for the lowest price of all the cars.
And if one should be harsh this is more or less the problem with this car. The less important a stat is, the more competitive it gets.
#19 - Valdez Coraje 1.8 Turbo - by a Discord user
Maybe another car aiming a bit low. With a “Porsche from Wish” styling, but made out of fiberglass with a flat 4 instead of a six, I get a bit more “Porsche kit car for Beetle floor pan” vibes than would be acceptable for this class.
Maybe it shows a bit of the problem with designing on Porsche bodies, keep the Porsche proportions and it will look like a Porsche, here it seems like you have taken some advantage of the morphs, and I actually don’t like the end result very much, the shape reminds me of a speed bump. Other than that, it’s mostly trying to be a 911 with 928 front end, so not very original, but with worse proportions.
The interior design? I like that much more, that should be said, even if it is not flawless.
The prestige is low, the top speed the slowest of all the cars, the comfort and safety is low. But it has the best brakes, gets the best mileage, has low service costs, low purchase price. Sportiness is decent as well as the reliability. All in all, it has the advantages of a small and light car, as well as the drawbacks.
Could have gotten further in another challenge, but appearantly not the winning formula this time.
#18 - Tempo SS @arthur_mp
Argh. This body again. And IMO, the fastback coupé is even worse than the notchback, it requires skills to not look way too modern in the early 80s. Also, I don’t like the styling otherwise either. It lacks detail and mainly looks like “fixtures slapped on”, especially bad from the back with the almost 2D looking taillights and giganormous badging.
The interior? Well, there is one there, and it works, I guess. Not flawless, not very inspiring, but does its job.
The sportiness is high. Comfort, driveability and safety low, it gulps quite a lot of fuel and eats up the whole budget. It is decently cheap to service and rather average in the rest of its stats.
Another car where some good points can’t compensate for the unfortunate flaws it has.
#17 - Zephorus Espion - @Riley
Here we have a car that the stats overall weren’t too keen of, but since I think it captured the vibe rather good, I decided to give it a little bit higher ranking.
But if we start with the styling, it gives the right vibes overall. It does not feel very original, though, because to me it feels like an Aston Martin V8 Vantage with some Jaguar XJS looking headlight pods. Which leads me to the question - why those ill fitting headlights? Round or oval ones would have followed the shape so much better. Maybe a grille with a little bit more flowing shape on top of that.
That’s my main gripe with the styling though - apart from not being very original, but it is not an ugly car otherwise and the interior looks really nice.
The second highest top speed (almost a tie with the Arnoc) and generally good performance otherwise. But sportiness, comfort, driveability all falls behind the competition. Other stats generally average, nothing really stands out.
#16 - Axxus Enigma - @DuceTheTruth100
A car with looks that stands out from the crowd. Maybe it won’t win any beauty contests, but it still has personality in a way that I like, not everything has to be about flowing shapes, and this is actually what some exotic, individualistic design from the early 80s could have looked like. About the interior, I repeat one thing here - it is there, and it works. But a little more inviting floor mat material could have helped it a bit.
Not very prestigeous, not very sporty and performance is lagging a bit behind, important stats that were maybe sacrificed a bit too much. On the other hand, it was the car with the best driveability and the second highest comfort. Also, cheap to service and relatively cheap to buy, but more questionable safety and reliability.
In some ways a shining star - in some way it lags behind. Not a bad car at all but maybe not the right one for the priorities in this exact challenge.
#15 - Cavaliere Nobile Zenturio biturbo - @Happyhungryhippo
To start with the good things - I love the interior with its futuristic styling, marble inserts and other interesting touches.
The exterior, I am not so sure, it manages to look anonymous and messy at the same time, how that is possible, and the chrome unibrow up front is too weird for my taste.
A bit sluggish performance wise for a turbocharged car, mediocre sportiness and comfort, low driveability. Also, expensive to service. But it is safe, weirdly economical on fuel and not as unreliable as one could believe.
All in all I think this is a car that somewhat sacrifices itself on the altar of realism. A weird italian turbo coupé from 1980 would not be better than this at anything. But since many people have managed to squeeze out better things from Automation as usual…well…
To be continued, post will exceed maximum length otherwise…
