im still baffled at how can you have 0.3l more capacity, 2 more cylinders. but have lower torque than mine does…
although, it has 100 hp more than mine…[/quote]
Isn’t it becuase yours is measured in nm and his is in ft/lb? Converted to nm his is 325nm 
[quote=“Lenraj”]
Isn’t it becuase yours is measured in nm and his is in ft/lb? Converted to nm his is 325nm 
[/quote]
OH GAWD
TOTAL DERP
Griffin Car-GO-While Very Powerful, the Car-GO’s Power is hidden up at the top of the rev range.
Where most van drivers do not tread. Unless they are assholes.
352.1
Solstice SuperNova- While it does look super cool, it’s expensive to maintain. Even when paired
against the Twin Turbo V8 Vans.
379.56
Earicorn Fidelis-One of the weakest vans, it needs a monocoque chassis to trim down it’s weight
because it only has 133 Horsepower.
388.42
Vanguard-This van struggles to get 25MPG, which I would be okay with if the engine weren’t so
weak.
390.22
THE_STIG-CargoMax-While the Monocoque chassis and multilink suspension made it very comfy, it
did not help it as a utility vehicle.
391.12
Polmot-Type V -While it is the easiest to drive, it’s too small to do any actual work.
396.36
Galt-V Series -Even with generous Overdrive, only 3 of the Van’s 5 Speed transmission can ever be
touched.
407.77
Blasters_PewPew-CarryAll much like the original Iron Duke, The 4.1 Liter Inline 4 and -15 quality tires
made for an unpleasant driving experience
410.89
Lenraj-Shippie -If I was looking to just transport myself around, this one one be the best. But, transporting
cargo is oddly enough not one of this van’s strong points.
413.15
Boss-Brute- The Quickest and fastest van Held up well as a utility vehicle, but could not keep up with
the regular car qualities.
414.81
Storm-Courier- It has plenty of room to carry around caskets.
416.66
Ponni-CargoMate- Using 93 Octane Fuel all the time is just not something all van drivers can afford.
419.38
Infinity-HC-20- No electronic stability control made this van a bit of a handful to drive.
424.1
Koolkei-Swan -This van is really slow, and it’s very heavy. Two things that do not go very well with each other.
430.32
DMA-CV-115 -Sitting in the CV115 is very painful compared to the competition.
431.10
TheCarLover SoloBear -The 3.0 Liter V6 feels very cheap, and a monocoque chassis does not help it as a utility vehicle.
432.71
LHE-Elephant-The Turbo charged engine was quite good when it needed to do hard work, but when it was cruising around it did nothing but waste gas.
432.73
Baltazar-Andromeda. -Just Barely not making the cut, The Andromeda was quite good all around, but failed to be dynamic enough to win.
434.17
5-???
4-???
3-???
2-???
1-???
[quote]9. DMA-CV-115 -Sitting in the CV115 is very painful compared to the competition.
431.10[/quote]
But the ride improves significantly once you load it. Isn’t that what its for riiiiight… 
Wait, I’m in the top 5? YES! This is, like, the first time I’m in the top xD
Wait a minute… Was my safety really that bad that you’re saying I need to haul around caskets? And here I thought 55.5 was actually kinda respectable. Now maybe I didn’t go for advanced safety, even though it was in the budget, but then again, maybe I should have. Usually I do and it ends up making my car too expensive or harming the other stats significantly. This time, I chose not to use Advanced and used Standard and bit myself square in the bottom.
Well, looks like me and my ‘coffin on wheels’ have to go back to the drawing board.
Haha. That’s not what I meant. I was just poking fun at the fact that it looked like a hearse. 
but I find that advanced safety is pretty much always a better option. For the same cost, you can get something lighter and more safe.
I’m with titleguy here: I scored top 5 in a balance oriented, UTILITY based challenge?
That frantic fortnight of building utility vehicles for the beta release must have paid off
Let me get this straight, my car didn’t make it to the review/ top 5 because of something that is utterly irrelevant to a van and that, according to the op, wouldn’t be scored at all?
If that is the case, I must say, the op was misleading, at the very least. And before anyone thinks that I tailor made my car to the rules, my original prototype was even slower, so I had to make the engine bigger in order to pass the minimum speed rules.
Perhaps I should have worded it better. By “Dynamic” I simply meant, it didn’t succeed in any one thing more than the competition. It was too “Middle of the road” if you will.
wow, i scored higher than i thought for something i threw together for a design test, and at least it gives it good tuning capabilities (for anyone crazy lol)
From my perspective, Leo’s and my approaches tend to differ, even when both of us are ‘taking the challenge seriously’: Leo tends to make better balanced cars, whereas I tend to build to max out the heavier weighted characteristics, often at the expense of other characteristics that still play a role. In the past, Leo’s approach has turned out better, but the balancing here may simply favour my approach, especially with the factors Utility involves.
Knew I should of spent more time fine tuning, or perhaps even have used MPFI over DFI, but ROLE PLAY…
Okay. I was writing a big text on balance of challenges and stuff, but whatever. TL,DR would be, no one cares about one single thing, and van owners and drivers care a lot about fuel and service costs, as those basically eat away their earnings.
Yes, coming last (more or less), just as I expected!
Van without door handles ftw
hey im in the top 10 on my very first challenge on this game.
that’s not so bad is it? 
although i kinda regret not using the original 2.6l turbo engine that makes much more power, more efficient, and lighter
all just for the sake of ‘drivability’. which i was overating it.
i even had to resubmit because the van was too slow. shorter, more agressive gearing, and 2 notch up on the fuel mixture, and a compression notch up later.
my van barely made the rules… literally only borderline slow.
i’ve gone ahead and did it. i reverse stropped…
Yay, PolMot still sucks! Who’s surprised? Not me…hooray for shortening the van!!!
Since I was not top 5, here are all of the stats for the Elephant.
since i never shown my van either.
had it used the turbo engine (without optimization tweaking, simply an engine swap)
like… mine is super comfortable, much more easier to drive, have higher prestige, super low fuel consumption, lower emissions
(11.42km/l = 8.75 l/100km = 32.25 MPG US) (10.62km/l = 9.41l/100km = 29.99MPG US)
high safety, high practicality, is pretty light (why is mine called heavy and slow, when it’s only slow?)
literally… the thing that’s holding me back is the comparatively weak engine…
so much regret
