Benefit to reliability and utility figures at the cost of top speed and fuel economy. Seemed like a good tradeoff for this vehicle to me.
4 Likes
Thanks for that, it makes sense to boost utility/reliability then. Since it was causing Automation to scream in yellow, I wanted to be sure.
OK, back to the project.
Also, if a car has active cooling flaps (which I think are unlocked by this era) there isn’t really reason not to set it to full.
Active cooling flaps partially close the grill when full cooling isn’t needed- effectively, they lower/raise the slider actively during driving. ('cause Dodge Rams don’t need those giant semi-truck grills all the time) So if you have said tech selected, you want the max cooling at full to give the flaps as much control possible.
I have results!
Here’s how I put this all together, in case anybody cares how the judging went:
Import and Export method
- I re-imported fresh copies of all trucks to Automation, so everyone was on the latest update.
- I zeroed out any Techpool left in place, moved any trim or engine year selections higher than 2003 back down to that.
Points Assessment
- Scores on individual “star priority” stats ranked 1 - 23
- Standard points assigned with 1st getting 10 points, 2nd gets 9 points, down to zero for mid-pack, and bottom tier gets negative points with the worst being rank 23 getting -10 points.
- Priorities are weighted - 1 star gets 50% weight, 2 star gets 100%, and 3 star gets 150% weights to the scores.
Example: 1st ranked entry with 3 star priority like utility gets 15 points.- Performance stat ranks (cornering, braking, top speed, 0 - ~62mph (100kph) acceleration, and 1/4 mile) are all averaged to one ranked score.
Penalties
- Entries that went over ET ratings were penalized 1 point for every point of ET over (rounded as shown in Automation.) The limits were 100 ET for the Trim, and 140 ET for the Engine.
- Entries that went over the Approximate Cost maximum of 30,000 received a penalty of 1 point per 100 in cost.
OK Everyone, here we go! We’re going to go in reverse order, since there are no bins.
23rd place: -130.17 points
@Happyhungryhippo - Globus Yosemite ST-57
Would have placed 16th before penalties, but was overcost by $9600 (!!), over on Trim and Engine ET. Implausible materials (not a race car here, its a sporty pickup), engineering choices, etc., and styling was overall OK but these wheels need offset to look right.
22nd place: -70.20 points
@IDK158 - Peregrine P292R
Overcost by 3300, engineering choices questionable (magnesium wheels, cassette, ITB’s, titanium rods, etc.) Objective scores back of the pack this time. On the bright side, you scored twice as high as the last place entry. Styling was quite good overall, but bumper was a bit busy and the accent color slightly overdone on the side with the door handle and side detail.
21st place: -51.40 points
@HappyFireBallMan Rhania Derosa RST
Overcost by 100, odd engineering (staggered 15’s, steel wheels, adaptive dampers, ITB’s, etc), last place ranked in several key areas. Styling has issues, lots of parts just added without resizing to suit / issues with scale.
More coming ASAP
7 Likes
21st place 
20th place: -35.50 points
@voiddoesnotknow Maddison 750 Thundercat Supercharged
Overcost by 3500, was in 6th place before penalties! Last place service costs, like many here staggered tires not helping with that. I don’t recommend staggered tires for a pickup, unless the power demands it. Styling good except rear license plate isn’t quite right, but otherwise nice.
19th place: -30.20 points
@Jaimz68 - FM Overlander GT
Penalty free, hurt by skinny all-terrain tires, last in reliability, 2nd place economy though. Styling not my style (this body doesn’t really work, the rear tires are way too far back, etc), and there’s stress on the crank.
18th place: -25.10 points
@Drewster564 - Valentine Uton TWISTER
Careful with naming conventions, there’s a reason why everyone labels their vehicles "QFC13 - [name], because sending it in with “Valentine” made it hard to remember you. Others will bin on this alone. Overcost by 100, mid to bottom tier scores except in performance, where it was 1st place in acceleration and 1/4 mile. Styling unique, nice matte Blurple color and overall good proportions.
17th place: -18 points
@SheikhMansour Rosewood Lumberjack
Overcost by 2200, mid to low ranks on most but solid 3rd Safety, and 4th Service costs. Styling - nice bold lime color. OK front minus the weird bumperettes, A little plain, maybe worth adding in some black around all the intakes and grille areas to break it up? Tiny side mirrors, rear is weird, lights don’t work on the back tailgate (because it folds down.)
7 Likes
16th place: - 16.80 points
@z2bbgr Sumida - G Max Gsport V8
2nd place Env. Resistance, mid-to rear pack on the rest, 2% stress on rods. Styling - front grille good but feels…unfinished? Missing badging for instance. Simple but elegant body style overall. Steel wheels and open diff a miss, but creative 60deg V8 done right.
15th place: -13.80 points
@ChemaTheMexican Garland L200 SR-8 ‘Dustbiter’
2nd place Sportiness and Top Speed, , mid to rear pack elsewhere
Engineering mostly great, though billet crank implausible. I like the styling a lot, especially the color choice and fenders.
14th place: -13.60 points
@the-chowi MMW Redwood FireSport
Midpack scores everywhere with no major sore spots. Engine I liked but VVL is a stretch for this era. Styling is on point, no complaints and I quite like the color, wheels, etc. Staggered tire sizes seems unnecessary at this power level, hurts some scores like service costs.
13th place: -9.50 points
@Hilbert Asagao Sunflower SPORT6 Utility
The oddball for sure, not really a cab+bed standard truck, really NOT sporty (last place Sportiness), last on Safety, however, first economy and comfort. Styling not fitting the challenge, but let’s move on. Engineering not ideal: rear brake force very high, high brake fade, intercooler too small for power rating, ITB intake, small narrow tires.
8 Likes
17’th isn’t where I wanted to land but happy I didn’t come dead last! and sorry about the naming convention, complete oversite on my part. 
No worries, just take your truck to the dragstrip because it dominated there.
1 Like
May have leaned a little hard into the sport bit, not so much on the truck bit
I got 21st because my truck sucked. Negative quality everywhere, unorthodox engineering, last in all the categories, and there was nothing good about it.
12th place: -3 points
@Bbestdu28 BMA Apalache SXT EGP
All aluminum panels maybe a bit futuristic but it netted 1st place Env. Resistance. 3rd Economy, 2nd place acceleration and 1/4 mile. Billet crank and ITB’s implausible, but other engineering like tire setup really well done. Styling is mid-pack, some neat touches, nice extended cab body.
11th place: -2.60 points
@oppositelock GSI Mastodon VST
200 overcost, nice wide square tire setup, last in Drivability but 2nd comfort, 3rd in braking. No real complaints with engineering, 6.4L SOHC with forged internals great engine, PERFECTLY flow-optimized and really well done. Nice square tire setup, perfect for the power and size of the truck, Styling nice, great hood and grille, I like the angled stripe too.
10th place: -1 point
@DrDoomD1scord Cheval Boxer SuperFast
Semi-active suspension not realistic, staggered tire setup hurt some things, solid disc front REALLY hurt things, mid to bottom pack most everywhere (but not horrible). VVL a bit futuristic Styling great, I like the look of this one especially as a cohesive offering.
7 Likes
9th place: 7.40 points
@TheYugo45GV Pandora Avatar GTX
Last in economy, front/mid-pack everywhere else just about. Engineering - some choices strange - cassette, semi-active swaybars, but other choices are great. Great wide, squared tire choice, and mean V10, probably worth the gas guzzling.
I quite like the styling, really great work here to make a low-slung, sporty truck.
8th place: 11.40 points
@Edsel Edsel Bazard PWR
3rd Sportiness, 3rd Env Resistance, mid-pack elsewhere. Overall good engineering, realistic engine choices, excellent flow optimization, thought the tires were a good size for ~248 HP. Styling - I do not like it all. This body type doesn’t say “sport truck”.
7th place: 13.90 points
@Ludvig Fowler Lumberjack mk4 211 Turbo
3rd in Reliability, 4th Economy, Engineering - tires could be wider, especially for a sport truck sporting this much power and torque. edit: forgot to add the styling notes - this one looks great, only the front grille and its many openings looks a little overdone, but the rest is just wonderful and very proportional. I like the cohesive style overall.
6th place: 16.10 points
@Ch_Flash Miller Venture Whirlwind
1st place Safety, 2nd in Service Costs. Engineering a bit weird: engine comparatively weak at 216HP, flat plane crank not helping here, AWD with manual lockers kinda strange, barely staggered tires doesn’t make sense at this power level, just adds expense and would probably have been 1st place in Service Costs with square tires. Solid disc front hurt some. Styling - good looking all around, front end looks like its smiling.
And please hold while I shoot myself for a huge mistake. I accidentally REVERSE-Ranked service costs. That’s a problem, and may very well affect the ranking on the mid-pack. STBY while I correct and edit.
*Update - I have fixed all the vehicles and their standing up till now. The mistake only shuffled things slightly, and all posts previously done have updated points and ranks.
More to come, thanks for your patience while I go through all of these.
8 Likes
Ah, crap! The update didn’t kill me but that techpool thing obviously did it twice as hard. Being among the last… happens sometimes when you saddle the wrong horse engineering wise like I did this time with overambitious ideas, if I read the review correct. Being THE last however, is a pain in the a…
At least mine looks good, I’m just happy to get it reviewed
I’m relieved to find out that my car is guaranteed a top-5 finish at worst - a top 3 might even be possible as things stand right now.
Techpool glitches strike again for me, but I would’ve been only 10th without them anyway. I’ll take it. Thanks Lanson 
1 Like
For the final 5:
5th place: 26.60 points
@ANANAS Straffesteen TRX Roi
Overcost by 100, 2nd place Reliability, 1st in Service Costs, middle of the pack scores everywhere else. Engineering - overall really good choices, ITB’s seem out of place. Good power and torque from a smallish V8, and nice square tire setup just right. Styling - Simple but nice overall, rear section very clean, front a little busy and maybe a bit weird with the hood mounted turn signals Rear wheels with their offset made the rear rim look different than the front, even with square tire sizes, weird!.
4th place: 27.80 points
@abg7 SVP Antelope SST
2nd in Drivability, 3rd in Comfort, 3rd in cornering, and lots of mid to upper-pack placing all around. Premium bits helped, staggered tire size but the power might have needed it. Engineering smart, 6.0L pushrod, forged V8 with realistic choices. Styling - a bit plain to be honest. It is smooth, proportioned ok, but little misses like rear exhaust openings not fitting the pipes, and front end with parts exposing the inside, because there’s no backstop material.
3rd place: 29.40 points
@LS_Swapped_Rx-7 Mercer Hawthorne Eruption
1st in Sportiness, Utility, braking, cornering, mid-pack in some and back of the pack in things like Service Costs. Engineering - semi active suspension seems too advanced, the rest of the engineering is on-point IMO. Styling - well done, aggressive, realistic, attractive. Just didn’t like the hood scoop a bit too far forward on the hood, nitpicking. I think this one won the Style category flat out.
Only one wearing 22’s, but it wears them well. Staggered tires hurt, but those performance wins have to be paid somehow.
2nd place 29.80 points
@Aruna and AndiD Arion Hercules 402S Extreme 90/2003
Pro tip, putting an “&” sign in the name makes exporting a problem, must be a reserved character.
3rd Drivability, 2nd Utility, so no major wins but it rarely placed low enough to lose points. This truck is great on engineering, lots of power and well done, steel wheels a miss but nice square tire setup ideal for the performance. Styling is detailed and great all around, only neg is the hood scoop looks added on, handome grille and front end, awesome side pipes, not a fan of the wheel style but they work ok. I think 3 spoke wheels remind me of my family’s 91 Ford Probe GT, and that was a weird car I’d like to forget.
And 1st place with a whopping 42.60 points (so it ran away from the others)
@donutsnail Bolland Braford SprintX V8
1st in Drivability and Reliability, 3rd in Utility, 2nd in braking, had a few misses but never lost many points at a time. Weirdly, went under cost by thousands, so it could have actually been even better! Engineering - well obviously it did well but the 4 speed gearbox seems one gear shy of greatness, but nice wide square tire setup, and the rest is realistic and effective, well done. Styling, I like the overall look, menacing grille, some of the body cladding and bumpers are a little lumpy, so it lost some minor points here and there. Sometimes Automation plays nice with your design, sometimes not.
Congratulations to the winner, donutsnail!
I’ll now share my excel file Copy of QFC13 v3 - Google Sheets
If anybody wants to discuss how I judged or have some ideas for maybe software or something to automate this, I’m thinking it might be a really good thing.
Thanks for the opportunity all! I’m a little bummed I didn’t get to compete, which I guess is the sign of a good competition. Take care!
13 Likes
I’ll take 4th considering that the overall winner was very far ahead of the others - but 2nd to 4th was very close. And I am in a position to host the next round if the entire top 3 is unable and/or unwilling to do so.
Sometimes doing something is equal to doing nothing. The only field I felt comfortable in was top speed as I was second place be 0.3 mph. Everything else sucked as I was the outlier(dumbass) that used a steel chassis. Most penalties regarding trim. The only truck with 15 inch rims that we you guessed it: steel. Last place in utility. Worst environmental resistance. Last in comfort. And another thing was that had the second most powerful engine (peak hp), first if we’re not considering the first place with a turbo.
The truck didn’t look good like the others nor had the practicality or performance. This truck sucked and got 21st place which I would be surprised, as the others may have beaten me if 23rd didn’t use race parts and if 22nd wasn’t over budget.
Why try? There’s no point of saying I did well and I should probably be moved to 23rd as the other 2 would agree that my truck should sit last.