Comfort over MPG seems to be a mistake but not safety, besides it’s easier to get more safety than more MPG
I am still pleased with how my car did, judging by the review it definitely made an impression, just not good enough on the cold hard numbers.
1 Like
HBL Second Cuts
The second round was no easier than the first. Thankfully, the cold hard mathematics made the decision easier, though it was still no easier to inform these companies that they could collect their cars.
The Mitsushita Karna 2.0E pushed hard enough to avoid the first round of cuts, but became the first to fall in the second round, carrying a score of 239.09.
Sadly, the Komodo Motors Phyton Jomund, despite being rather impressive in most rights, wasn’t quite impressive enough to pass the second round. The final score for the Jomund ended up at 262.84 points.
The Betta Anagenesis tried really hard, but the final score of 267.53 wasn’t quite high enough to make it. A bold attempt at dropping the price worked, to a point.
The Mott Works Mercury made a rather noisy exit after finding out their 269.6825 points weren’t quite good enough to move on.
The BAM Enios looked really good, and got quite far. Just not quite far enough to make it out of the second round. Collecting 275.425 points, the small hatch heads home proud in the knowledge that $22,260 was almost the right price.
The Canada Motors Halifax Eco can go home proud in the knowledge that it was the last 4 cylinder in the field, having carved out a spot for itself in the mountain it had to climb. It just ran out of road at 276.26 points.
The last car to face the axe is the GTAR Liar. Having pulled a brutally bold strategy of being cheaper than dirt, with enough punch to make it competitive and a healthy pinch of fuel efficiency, the Liar made it quite far. Having gathered up 280.8725 points, it goes home proudly, having been the cheapest car here at $15,960.
End of the second round of cuts.
Next will be the Honorable Mention, followed by the final review of the final three.
So, @Leedar, @HowlerAutomotive, @Ornate, how are you three feeling right now? Nervous? You should be. After all, I tagged you along with the others. Yep, was feeling just a little… evil.
11 Likes
lmao: saw the @ in my messages, thought for sure than meant I was cut. 
Whatever the outcome, not a bad placement for my first competition, especially since I was somewhat handicapped by
limitations I put on my design that had nothing to do with the competition directly (no ‘limited/no mass production’ parts, no magnesium, generic square bore engine block <1200 cc to get in the lowest Fruinian tax bracket and be reusable for another car, positive ‘engine’ stat in drivability (no laggy turbos or overly irregular power delivery, which limits engine efficiency at the moment), at least ‘standard’ interior/infotainment/safety).
I guess people like @strop probably think I’m a number crunching douchebag creating a boringmobile, but that’s just the sort of car the competition wanted when sportiness was ranked so low.
Jokes on you, I always scroll down to bottom and read up.
2 Likes
noooooooo the pythonnnnnnnn you’ve let me down…
but yeah it was rather expensive, and the engine was too large 
2 Likes
I’m delighted that the Earthfriend has come so far. I was away for Christmas and could only check on the internets every few days, so I knew I had passed the first cuts, but still have a good bit of reading ahead of me for most of the reviews.
I did expect to see it in the second cuts because of the @, but it looks like the earth-friendly saga still has a chapter left. 
5 Likes
You and @szafirowy01 should be proud I’m surprised how well both the Python and Luna were very impressive considering they weren’t even designed with such a challenge in mind! Pretty damn versatile designs you’ve got there.
3 Likes
I never had the chance to finish tuning before leaving for the holidays but here’s the big engine prototype I’d been working on for this. couldn’t get a 9 liter to hit the mpg requirements, but I did manage to with a 5.5L V8.
nialloftara - Model 21.zip (21.2 KB)
5 Likes
Well, the forum downtime did set me back by about a day, so I’m going to have to double-up today and post both the Honorable Mention and then the three Finalists some time later to keep to my goal.
HBL Honorable Mention
The reason you got picked, actually, is two-fold. One reason is because you did build the wild-card entry, the 50 MPG sports car that thrashed the rules to within a millimeter of the limits. The other, actually, is because your car helped me avoid the end-of-challenge writer’s block that would’ve otherwise led to the final ‘gift reviews’ being mundane and boring.
Effectively, your car is what the whole world, both Automation and Real, would probably want. 50 MPG, sporty, 300 horsepower, with very few compromises in order to get that. Yes, it looks outlandish, but then again, as the wild-card of the challenge, it had to. If it didn’t look like it rolled out of the Gryphon Gear factory (Yes, I know, it’s an Armada), it would’ve been overlooked too easily. It would’ve been too normal.
So, as a result, I’ve got Luke’s half of the phone conversation with Armada, asking to buy the Ceres they’d delivered, as one of the two cars he was going to buy.
“Hello! Yes, this is Luke. No, the Ceres didn’t win, but I still want one. Because it’s a 300 horsepower economy sports sedan, and not outrageously expensive, and because I can afford it. If I’m going to be told by the Environmental Protection Agency what cars I can and can’t drive, I’m going to drive something fun, and that’s why. Yes, I know I mentioned the 7 speed sequential was the only thing I thought was wrong with the car. I drive manual transmissions a lot, and I prefer that arrangement. A good sequential, and yours was a good one, is more than good enough for 90% of drivers out there. Now, I’m not saying that if you happened to have a Ceres in blue, and it had a six or seven speed stick, that I wouldn’t be more interested in that one, but… I’m able to drive with the sequential. What do I have against sequentials? Timing. I live at the speed where milliseconds matter. I send the signal to change a gear up, it takes 10 milliseconds for the signal to go through my system, through the hydraulic and servo controllers, and out to my fingertips to pull the paddle. It then takes anywhere between 12, for a really good double-clutch box, to 120 milliseconds for the transmission to respond to my action. In a manual transmission, it takes 800 milliseconds for the signal to go through all the controllers for my right foot to come off the throttle, my left foot to land on the clutch, and my right hand to grab the gear stick and move it up, or down, one gear, release the clutch, and get back on the accelerator. But the transmission has responded instantly to that movement, and while it is slower, it’s all lag on my side of the equation. That’s why I prefer manual over sequential. But I still want an Armada Ceres, regardless of the color, or the transmission. Because you can’t get rear-wheel-drive, 300 horsepower, and 50 miles per gallon in much of anything these days, and less so in a car that is reasonably sized for me.”
Yeah, went a bit out of my way, there, but had an opportunity to develop Luke’s character more. Also shows why he honestly prefers manual over sequential, and it’s all because his internal speed is fast enough to get off the shift and spend time counting microseconds, not milliseconds, before the car responds. And while it’s honestly faster than he can shift in a manual, he knows that the only reason that he’s slow in a stick-shift car is because he’s not directly linked to the clutch, the throttle, and the gear stick. So most of his time is spent waiting on movement on his side, but he’s used to that. It’s why it annoys him in a sequential transmission, not because it’s faster than he is, but because he knows he’d have been even faster, had there been a way for him to interrupt the signal and do it himself.
So, there’s a little extra bit about Luke, and a request from Luke to buy the car.
End of the Honorable Mention
Final Reviews Coming Soon
7 Likes
Guess it’s time to work on cybernetic interface for instant thought shifting 
2 Likes
Makes me wonder if European-style preference for manuals will be modelled in the grand campaign for some countries.
Hybrid Beaters League
The Final Three
Note: these reviews are more like if I were reviewing the cars, and not as much like Luke. I figured it was as good a prize as I could come up with, and as a result, they’re different than what Luke thought, and could contradict his reviews. This is normal and to be expected.
Enjoy the reviews, you three have earned it.
The Gnoo Earthfriend comes in third, with 292.9925 points.
Part of the reason the Earthfriend got this far is because of the engine, the 40.47% efficient GreenHug inline 6. Weighing in at 111.1 kg, and providing 90.3 horsepower out of it’s 1350cc frame, this light and efficient engine was built for fuel efficiency. All AlSi construction, DOHC with VVL and 4 valves per cylinder, low friction cast pistons (though it does use a cast iron crank and connecting rods), 10.0:1 compression ratio, VVT, and a turbocharger with a small water/air intercooler all work together for that amazing economy figure. All the engines in this challenge were Direct Fuel Injection, but the GreenHug used a single throttle body and a standard air-box to great effect. What we do know from looking over the engine is it’s built to last, scoring a 90.1 on our reliability tests. By design from the factory, the exhaust is restricting the engine, something unusual on the turbocharged cars, where usually the designers would focus on a free-flowing exhaust after the turbo.
But the engine is only half of the battle.
The Earthfriend pairs this little and efficient engine with a sequential single-clutch gearbox, carrying 6 speeds. Gearing is set up for a standard single-overdrive in sixth gear, and the whole setup is put in sideways to drive the front wheels only. Because it’s front wheel drive and low powered, the open front differential is not actually a notable problem.
The tires are hard road tires, mounted on 15 inch alloy rims, and both the front and rear tires match in width at 155 millimeters. The tires are from a more up-scale brand (+3 quality), but it’s not unreasonable to buy these tires, given the fuel savings.
Brakes are a simple vented disc setup, front and rear, with 255mm discs up front and 2 piston calipers, and 215mm discs out back, with 1 piston calipers. Notably, the rear brake pads are a more gentle compound than usual, likely improving drivability while not sacrificing brake performance in much of a notable fashion.
Aerodynamically, this car is impressive. It doesn’t look like much, being the average family wagon, but it has a fully clad undertray, cooling flaps up front to keep unnecessary air out, and just enough air hitting that radiator to keep from overheating (needed: 66.2. Has: 67.2). But what’s most notable about this vehicle is that the aerodynamics would make a wind tunnel envious. Credit has to be given to Gnoo for making the Earthfriend this aerodynamic, which really helped it out. (+6 quality)
Inside the car is as eco-friendly as it gets. With 4 seats covered in recycled denim (-5 quality Premium), and a decent radio, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more comfortable car in the lineup. In fact, you can’t, because this car is the comfort king at 55.7 points.
Suspension is progressive springs, adaptive dampers, and semi-active sway-bars, with a setup that landed it square on the drivability line. No bottoming out, so all’s good on that side of things.
So, how did the Earthfriend manage third place?
Pros:
67.1 MPG was the highest of the entire group.
55.7 Comfort, again highest overall
$25,900 price tag, with $1749 running costs. Not great, but not bad.
1078 liters of cargo space to hold everything life throws at you.
Very reliable overall, maintaining a strong focus on keeping the car on the road.
Low emissions, lowest of the top three, but not overall.
Cons:
Acceleration of 11.6 is very-nearly the slowest car here, with the exception of the DMA LW118-E, which had more weight to pull around and half the cylinders (although the DMA had more displacement)
Great at lots of little things, but overall beaten by two cars that, while they were much less fuel efficient, cost less overall.
So, who should buy a Gnoo Earthfriend?
Anyone who wants a 67 MPG station wagon with great comfort, is rarely in a hurry to get anywhere, and doesn’t mind the nearly $26,000 price tag associated with the high efficiency.
In second place, the Ornate Familyman, bringing home 302.17 points with all the data added up.
Overall, this minivan surprised the heck out of me when it showed up for review. 52 MPG, sure, I expected that. But then I started to sanity-check the machine and had a jaw-dropping few moments. At first, this van made me wonder if cargo space was broken in my challenge. So, I made a second test vehicle, went for maximum cargo space, and found out, no, that’s not entirely why the Familyman’s score was so high. It revealed the big trick behind how to win this challenge.
You needed a car that was good on gas, had plenty of space, moved quickly, was comfortable, drivable, safe, practical, and reliable. But also inexpensive.
You see, the Familyman rolls off the dealership lots at $22,260. Now, what makes it special is that at $22,260, the Familyman is AWD, has a fairly robust inline 6, and uses leaf-springs under the back for maximum cargo capacity.
Effectively, it pulled a mean bait-and-switch by being both the obligatory van entry, and yet also being good. So, how did it manage to get this far?
Starting with the engine, it’s an inline 6, all AlSi construction, but where the Gnoo Earthfriend favored low displacement and magic adjustable cam profiles, the Familyman goes for brute force, packing a 1924cc engine with a DOHC 5 valve setup. Again, we have the cast, cast, and low friction setup, but this time, we have an 8.9:1 compression ratio and VVT working together with a turbocharger, again water/air intercooled. Again, we have DFI with a single throttle body, but a performance intake this time, which leads to slightly higher service-costs, which raises the running cost a bit in the end. As mentioned previously, this engine is relatively free flowing after the turbo, but still manages 39.32% efficiency. And at 82.8 reliability, it’ll be around a while, too.
This engine is also coupled to a 6 speed single-clutch sequential, but sixth isn’t a full gear overdrive, only about halfway. However, this isn’t exactly a bad thing, as the 52 MPG is impressive, given the AWD system beneath. Power is split 53% to the front wheels, 47% to the rear ones, which seems strange to me, but it worked. And as it’s AWD, the open differential really doesn’t bother it unless you need it because you got stuck in the snow somewhere. I’d recommend taking the money you save on buying one of these and upgrading to limited slips if you actually need the AWD because of poor road conditions.
Tires are hard road, again from a higher-end manufacturer (+2 quality) wrapped around a 13 inch steel rim. Front tires are 185mm wide, and rears are 195mm, so don’t be expecting to just put the back tire on the front if you have a blowout.
Brakes are again, a simple vented-disc setup, with 2 piston calipers and 250mm rotors up front, and single pistons out back on 235mm rotors. There’s no brake fade, thanks to the very aggressive race-grade compounds up front, so expect to pay a little extra when you’re getting your brake pads swapped at the mechanic, or you may find yourself having a hard time stopping.
Aerodynamically, the Familyman is far from lacking. The underbelly of the van is fully covered, there are cooling flaps to restrict airflow when it’s not needed, and again, just enough air flowing through to cool everything down. (Needed: 99.4. Available: 100.7) No extra optimizations went into the aerodynamics, but that would have just needlessly blown up the price on this van.
Inside, you have cloth seats for 5, a fairly basic radio, and a funny little red button on the steering wheel that says “Launch Control”. Let me say this: the van’s 0-60 time is 9.8 seconds. While getting a tire-chirping launch is hilarious to pull in a minivan, and while you’ll occasionally outrun the sleepy goof in the car with the loud fart-can, this is far from a race-car. But it’s nice to see the inclusion of at least something for the driver’s personal amusement. There’s something amusing about pushing that button, standing on the brake and the gas together, and listening to the inline 6 bouncing off of the launch-control rev limiter. Plus, it can be amusing to throw friends and family around the interior if they’re not paying attention. I managed to get one of my friends to lose his fries and a cheeseburger to the rear window of the van with one well-timed launch. If the company is reading this, my apologies to the burger stain on the window glass. I’m sure it’ll wash off just fine, but I didn’t feel like trying. As for the spilled soda in the center console, totally my bad, the lid came off of my Slurp-n’-Burp super-size soda and the contents went everywhere.
Suspension is mostly simple, with progressive springs and gas mono-tube dampers. Though the active sway bars are a nice touch. Amusingly, the hint of positive camber on the front wheels is beneficial to how the van drives. And again, there’s no butt-busting bottoming out even with as soft as the suspension is.
How did the Ornate Familyman pull off a second place finish?
Pros:
Cargo space, because it’s a van, is massive at 1538 liters, with 5 seats.
Low cost, at $22,260. Seriously, this isn’t a bad investment.
High overall reliability at 79.9 points. This isn’t exactly a bad vehicle to own, you’ll have it a long time.
Reasonable fuel economy. 52 MPG is nothing to sneeze at.
AWD. Yes, even though you’ll have to put aftermarket differentials in the poor thing to get through snow and shitty roads, it’s still there, so it’s still counting.
Ironically, the leaf springs are also a benefit, because if you remove the rear seats, it’s damn near a pickup truck.
Safety. Best in class, at 59.4. It’s one van that you don’t fear the accident in, because it’s just that good.
Cons:
Of the final 3, it has the highest running costs, at $1845. Though several other cars have had worse.
Old engine technology means a lot was left on the table regarding fuel efficiency.
Would have been more efficient if the AWD was given up in favor of either RWD or FWD.
So, who should own the Familyman?
Anyone who needs a minivan, of course. Also anyone who thinks they need an SUV, but what they really need is a minivan. Also, anyone who wants to haul cargo efficiently. I could see these used as plumbing trucks because of their dependability and the interior space available. Also, anyone with kids, because those sliding rear doors are a real treat to everyone around you. Your insurance company will be much happier with you if you’re not busting up everyone’s cars because the rug-rats have kicked the door of your SUV into someone’s car.
And the winner is:
With the Boyd Aster at 303.3925 points.
So, what allowed the Boyd Aster to swoop in and steal the win?
Under the hood, we have an inline 6, again stuffed sideways in the engine bay. At 1195cc, Boyd is right in calling this the Baby Six. It’s a dual-overhead cam design, with 4 valves per cylinder and VVL in play, all stuffed into an all AlSi block and head. The crankshaft is forged steel, the connecting rods are forged H-beam steel, and the pistons are low-friction cast, making the whole rotating assembly extra-light-weight. A 9.3:1 compression ratio is paired with one hell of a cam split, going from bare-bones fuel efficiency and low-end torque (cam profile 0) to outright nightmare (VVL profile 100) over the whole rev range. With VVT thrown in on top, it’s easy to see why the Boyd Aster’s engine made it here. A turbo is used to sweeten the deal, with a water/air intercooler, though amusingly, the turbo is only outputting 3.68 PSI of boost pressure. I think some farts might have more pressure than that, but if it works, it works. Again, it’s a DFI based system, with a single throttle body and a factory standard airbox. The exhaust only mildly restricts the flow, so minimally, in fact, that it almost went overlooked. With an efficiency rating of 28.74%, the lowest of the big three, it just goes to show that it’s not always the engine that matters. Oh, and this Baby Six can scream, too, to the tune of 8,000 RPM. Which is where it makes maximum power, and the torque isn’t too far behind. This would be great paired with a CVT, but instead, Boyd had other ideas.
Instead, they mated the Baby Six to a 7 speed single-clutch sequential. Not just any sequential, though. The top end of fifth, all of sixth, and all of seventh are all overdrive gears, leading to this car’s 52.8 MPG.
Tires are hard road tires on 20 inch alloy rims, with 165mm wide tires front and rear. Notably, these are fairly standard off-the-shelf tires, nothing special. It’s actually nice to see that, because the name of the game is to not spend the cost of your fuel savings on other consumables like air-filters and tires.
Brakes are also an interesting change from the usual strategy. Again, an all vented-disc affair, but instead of using expensive brake pads to stop the fade, the Aster packs big rotors and lots of pistons in the front calipers. 345 millimeters and 3 pistons, respectively. Out back, 205mm rotors and single piston calipers work to help you slow down. But the Boyd Aster uses again, off-the-shelf grade brake pads.
Aerodynamics are covered with a fully-clad undertray and cooling flaps, but unlike the other two cars, the Boyd Aster leaves the option open to the car to have more than enough cooling in the event it gets a bit too hot. (Needed: 98.7. Has: 293.3)
As for the interior, it’s 5 good cloth seats, and a decent standard radio. More notable, however, is that there’s no side-curtain air-bags, just the driver’s and passenger’s bags in the event of an accident. But there are advantages to that: In the event of an accident, it’s less likely for your car to get written off by the insurance company because $10,000 worth of airbags deployed to save you from $2,000 worth of crash damage.
Suspension is, like the rest of the car, kept simple. Progressive springs, gas mono-tube dampers, and passive sway bars. This is not a bad thing, though, as there’s less stuff to break, less things to go wrong, and less things to fiddle with in the car. And while we’re talking suspension, I have to give Boyd credit for building the Aster with the torsion beam rear end and the MacPherson struts up front, because they enabled this car’s killer blow to the competition.
All of this greatness only costs you $19,600.
Yes. You see that correctly. Less than $20,000 gets you a fuel-sipping family sedan that isn’t awful. Technically, it’s a hatchback, but it’s not small.
So, how did the Boyd Aster win it?
Pros:
Low cost. $19,600 was the second cheapest car in the competition. However, unlike the GTAR Liar, the Boyd Aster didn’t sacrifice the rest of the car to make the lowest cost. This car gets decent fuel economy, is comfortable, it is the easiest to drive of the bunch, and, of the top three, has the lowest running costs. Despite being a hatchback against a wagon, the Aster’s 913 liters of cargo space nearly rivals the Gnoo Earthfriend.
Cons:
Compared to everything else in the competition, this car pollutes like a cow’s backside. Not to say that the emissions are actually bad (24, overall, at the car tab), but that other cars in the lineup had lower emissions. Also, you are sacrificing a lot to get the cheaper car. Of the top three, it’s the least safe, and it’ll move the least amount of cargo in one trip. But, it’s not all doom and gloom, as the Boyd Aster did manage to squeeze out a win.
So, who needs to have one?
Anyone looking for a budget fuel-efficient car, anyone concerned about the rising costs of cars or gas, and anyone who thinks the idea of a transverse-mounted inline 6 that can bang on the 8,000 RPM rev limiter sounds really cool.
Plus, Luke of Storm Automotive drives one, and even he can’t really argue against it too much. Although I think he ordered his in blue. But I read his review on it, and I can understand his dislike of the paint color. It’s a little loud. Still not bad, though.
And that’s the end, everyone. It’s been a long, rocky road to get here, but yeah, it’s done. And as my first official challenge under my belt, I feel a bit relieved, to be honest. It’s harder than it looks.
Spreadsheet is included in the .zip file below. Both the original OpenOffice file, and a conversion to Excel’s .xls is included in the event that whatever software you’re using isn’t overly happy with the software I used.
HBL Spreadsheets.zip (48.4 KB)
I had fun with this challenge and look forward to holding future challenges. I thank you all for your patience with me, my writer’s block, and my struggling through my first official challenge.
10 Likes
2nd place again
I am the Netherlands of Automation, this is the 3rd time, god damn it.
3 Likes
On the plus side, it was a really, really close second place. And you were in the lead for a very long time.
2 Likes
It’s always a close second place but, I am happy. I managed to get to 2nd place with the specialty entry of it being a bona fied van which carried stuff while being efficient. This was a great challenge, really made me flex my eco-build muscles.
3 Likes
Thanks for the competition @Madrias and all entrants! The reviews are quite fun. Sorry that a boring car had to win. 
(to make matters worse, I am allergic to quality sliders, so less for Madrias to talk about)
(FYI, as I mentioned previously the turbo wasn’t used as it is conventionally for extra power or economy; the idea was to reduce engine noise and straighten out the saggy VVL torque curve without a net loss in power-weight ratio. Going for that weird 1.2L engine was sort of a lore-based decision which I had to make work, there is certainly a more optimal solution out there…)
3 Likes
Very interesting. A stock Adenine Cadence at 40% markup ($17920) would have scored a whopping 335 points. It looks like the formula puts a very strong emphasis on cost, which makes sense from a realism standpoint (hybrid beaters should be cheaper than hybrids). But perhaps the original prompt, which said that price was only of moderate importance, was a bit misleading.
4 Likes
Understandable. To be fair, the formula was created after I gave the original intended “This is what you should aim for” and I never thought to sanity check how powerful price was. Once I saw how powerful it was, I realized my mistake, but also decided that, despite the fact that it was a little on the strong side, I’d be more in the wrong to change it in the middle of the competition.
As for going back to update the original prompt, I honestly thought price was in the “highly scored” area, so that is, in fact, totally my fault.
As I’ve said, my first official challenge, and any spreadsheets in the future will be sanity checked more thoroughly before I start my next challenge, to avoid any more hiccups like this one.
2 Likes
Thanks to @Madrias for a great (and refreshing) challenge and congratulations to @Leedar and @Ornate for showing the Gnoo their taillights. I didn’t expect the Earthfriend to end up as high as it did. Great fun.
To follow up on the conversation regarding price/weighting, the excel does seem to show a few differences between the original brief and actual impact of a few stats. I’ve made a quick lineup showing the stat name, weighting in brief (High-Moderate-Low) and impact on final score (difference of highest and lowest competitors, on the assumption that they covered most of the sensible range and taking out the benchmark cars).
I should stress that I think the challenge was very well run and the reviews were a delight to read. The below is intended as constructive for discussion, as I’ve had to weigh very different stat values against each other in the past.
1.) Cost (M - 99.4)
2.) Practicality (M - 72.6)
3.) Running Costs (M - 70.0)
4.) Comfort (H - 59.7)
5.) Drivability (H - 44.1)
6.) MPG (H - 40.2)
7.) Safety (H - 37.8)
8.) Cargo Vol (M - 32,9)
9.) Reliability (H - 28.8)
10.) Env resistance (L - 28.4)
11.) Emissions (H - 28.0)
12.) Sportiness (L - 27.6)
13.) Prestige (L - 17.8)
14.) Utility (M - 15.9)
15.) Acceleration (M - 15.0)
It seems that cost, practicality and running costs (M) were in the order of 1.5-2.5 times more important than drivability and MPG (H). At the same time, emissions and reliability (rated H) were in the same order of importance as environmental resistance and sportiness (both L) and roughly 4 times less significant than cost.
I would suggest that to make weighting easier and to take account of the different base values+amplitudes of stats (price 20000+/-6000, MPG around ~60+/-10, emissions around 20 and so on) it might be good in the future to first convert all stats to the same baseline, i.e. best car in each category at +/-100 points and the others to follow - and then apply multipliers in the final formula.
2 Likes