Unfortunately I couldn’t get my car to accelerate from 0 - 60 mph below 8.0s and I didn’t even send it. 
You should have and joined me at the instabin table. 
The rest of the results:
6th Place
@TubroTerra 32.37 POINTS
The design of this car seemed incredibly rushed. Still, the high reliability (and practicality) helped push this one to the number 6 spot. Overall a decent all-around cop car.
5th Place
@GetWrekt01 33.53 POINTS
The highest reliability of the bunch, this car had a decent look to it. I especially liked the interesting taillight assembly. The only reason it didn’t place higher was that other cars in the field beat it in drivability.
4th Place
@Bmaggiori 34.93 POINTS
The small cars seemed to win out with this challenge. I liked how this one looked, with the taillights mimicking the shape of the headlight housings. It was also very quick, and did well in all the pertinent categories. Nice job on this one.
3rd Place
@Petakabras 35.04 POINTS
This was a nice looking car with European flair. Proportions were nice, and it gave off a Falcon vibe. Very high reliability and practicality, as well as it was good in the other stats as well.
2nd Place
@Jaimz 35.65 POINTS
Like the other small cars, The Franklin excelled in many of the same statistics. The proportions seemed a little more odd to me than other cars, but I liked the hood scoops and aggressive stance. Great job!
1st Place
@Slyo_vom_Pluto 36.84 POINTS
Wonderfully quirky, I was actually a little surprised more people didn’t experiment with different drive types. Mid-engine V8, great looks, and impressive statistics including the highest comfort and practicality ratings of all cars made this car the clear winner. Those punk kids with their muscle cars won’t know what hit them when this thing pulls them over!
Great job everyone! And, as is the convention, would @Slyo_vom_Pluto be willing to host the next round?
3 Likes
OK?
Quite happy with 4th place…
Congratulations to the winner…
So a compact, mid engine sedan with independent suspension… the least realistic thing imaginable… won.
Congrats?
3 Likes
Hang on, what? Mid engined? Where would you sit
So in what was supposed to be a challenge for large American police cars, the top 3 winners were all small European-style cars? With the car in first place also having rather questionable specifications?
I’m not sure whether I should say congratulations or not…
5 Likes
Thanks for the compliments on my car and its engineering but uhhh… I’m not American and even I feel weird seeing the podium cars 
1 Like
Awww, I didn’t expect this, admittedly the sedan body looks a little small when it ain’t, really.
I feel obliged to retract a little in experimentallity points if I don’t want to be ostracized by the community >////<
Nonetheless, I’d be glad to host the next round!
1 Like
Go Slyo!!
More than happy with 2nd place. Was expecting to be at the bottom after seeing all the other cars.
1 Like
I am fine with 6th place 
1 Like
I understand everyone’s concern with which cars took the podium, but as the rules stated this was strictly a points challenge (with a small element of design). I can’t take points away for mid-engined cars (or even small cars) because they all technically existed in America at the time… even if they weren’t the norm. Future challenges may restrict size or drive type (hosts may want to consider that after people’s reaction to the results here 
) but I left this challenge open to it. I’m actually surprised no one even attempted front-wheel-drive. It would have boosted drivability by a ton.
no, fwd is just silly, even for me…
There were no American mid engined production cars at this time, and certainly not sedans. The mere concept is silly. There also weren’t any fwd sedans, just large luxury coupes.
Compacts also were also rarely if ever used by police - they were sometimes city cruisers or for government paperwork like the CPS or IRS, but highway interceptors were mid or full size.
Honestly anything with less than 2.6m of wheelbase, front engined, rwd, live rear axle should have been culled for “minmaxing”. You can most certainly drop cars out of specs challenges when they are unrealistic, especially in a history focused challenge like this.
The Corvair was rear engine. Not mid, not in the slightest. The engine was behind the rear axle. A mid engine sedan would have the engine in the back seat.
The Corvair was also discontinued in 1969. It was not available in 1971, nor was any vehicle like it.
It’s of course at your discretion if you want to ignore realism in favor of arbitrary numbers obtained through manipulating the game. You are the judge.
I can tell you are angry. I’m not trying to rile you up even further. Just a couple things though (perhaps just to clarify where my mindset was on this challenge).
Firstly, and I cannot stress this enough, this is only a game. I’m not sure how historically focused anyone else took this challenge to be, but in the end every single one of the entrants was a made-up car. Whether it was a rear-drive sedan or a mid-engined one or an SUV, none of these cars actually existed in 1971.
Secondly, the scoring was clearly outlined before submissions opened. More importantly, one of the cardinal rules of challenges is this: Anything not specifically spelled out in the rules is not a rule. I did not exclude mid-engine cars, or SUVs, or front-wheel drive. Therefore, I cannot, must not bin those entrants simply for being what they are.
The PDC Challenge was created to be more focused on the engineering of the car. I took that to heart in the creation and scoring of this challenge. I’m sorry if it didn’t turn out to be what you thought it would be. Hopefully the next one is more up your alley.
5 Likes