This is my first light sport car ,Please I would like some opinions and advice to improve it.
3 Likes
This must be a very old car (late 40s/early 50s) and built to a price, with leaf-sprung rear suspension. But it looks period-accurate. And as far as late 40s/early 50s sports cars go, its performance is very good indeed.
2 Likes
Hmm. A 2.3 litre V12 is quite small. I think you could’ve got better performance with a I6 with the same displacement, since your engine didn’t even rev that much. Either try to raise the rpm limit and make the cams more aggressive to eliminate valve float and get more performance at higher revs, make the engine bigger or reduce the number of cylinders a bit. 130 hp out of 2.3L engine in the 40s is ok. Not bad, but not too good either for a high performance car.
Styling’s ok. You did make the car look period accurate but it’s a little bland. The sides are great and that ornament-type thing on the front wings seals the deal. The front is a bit generic, try to experiment with fusing different grilles together to make some unique shapes. The lights are good looking though. The rear is weird. Why are the rear lights white? They’re also too big to be realistic. It’s also a bit empty, although I know that if you want to make a realistic 40s/50s car the rear will be a bit empty.
I don’t know how much you’ve played Automation so I’m going to assume that this is one of your first cars that you’ve made. For a beginner’s car this is a very good build.
1 Like
Where do you get these ideas? Are they even researched? Are you giving suggestions out of experience of building cars in automation? Cause it doesn’t look like you’ve built anything in the 40’s
It’s just fine.
Old technology and that idea is something that is not going to work, and valve float is the least of your problems. The first thing to go whether you like it or not will be the heavy rotating assembly, which don’t like high RPM. And your “eliminate valve float” suggestion will only push him into higher RPM where the rotating assembly will become even more of a problem. So that bit of suggestion is quite rubbish.
130hp in the 40’s is A LOT, not “not bad but not good”, and we aren’t even beginning to consider the fact that it’s just a 2.3. A ferrari of that time would barely score 90hp out of a 2 liter v12, so what exactly are you basing this on? Go google what Ferrari were doing in the 40’s, then come back and say they had “too small engines”, and weren’t “High performance cars”. Also your managed to beat that mark by 20hp in 1955 in a car 300+ kilos heavier, and it was called “HELLRAISER”, so, how exactly is this “not powerful enough” ?
And what would you control all that better performance with? Carbon ceramic brakes and 295/35/r20 tires? Hint - they don’t exist in the 40s’.
All in all, you’re dumping crap over a perfectly fine sportscar.
1 Like
Sorry for being a shitty advice giver.
1 Like
Thank’s for yours Feedback
