For a van - yeah, maybe, but compared to the competition it was pretty average. That’s one of the things I’ll write about in the bonus part.
@passengerpigeon I’ll elaborate in the bonus part, but for now - it had one of the worst drivability values in the competition, and one of the best performance scores (no wonder, your car would be outaccelerating a Porsche 912, an actual sports car).
There was no need to go that small to begin with in a challenge where the buyers specifically wanted to upsize from their current subcompact and were OK with the purchase and fuel costs of a significantly larger car, based on the examples. But as usual your engineering is solid, so surprisingly Jacques seems to still be considering the little Amen’Voi in spite of its lack of space.
I’m not 100% sure on why my fuel economy is so bad, the engine isn’t that big at 1.9l. I think it’s the squareness of the body not helping as it gets quite a bit better if I just swap to the newer transit shaped body, that is actually a bit bigger too.
A van that’s impractically high riding, and is less practical than expected from a van overall. Small engine along with moderate servicing prices helps the running costs, but bogs down performance so much that it barely feels faster than the old Famal. Well, at least it’s quite comfortable and seems to be durable and safe.
Another rear engined car, another insufficiently practical one. But here the rear engine shows its drawbacks even more, as it’s also the most difficult to drive - and combined with reports about poor safety this doesn’t look good, especially at a rather high price point. The only things really above the average are really good performance and, a bit, the build quality.
That’s from… Asia? At least Jacques thinks so. Whatever the case, it’s immensely practical, really quick, apparently very reliable and safe and quite comfortable. The definite downside are the costs, both upfront and recurring - the car is rather large, the engine is too, and not very advanced while being somewhat powerful - no wonder it’s not very efficient. Oh, and it seems they haven’t heard of rust protection in… whatever exotic land this comes from. Still, a good car with a quality feel.
Jacques is not sure about the origins of this one too, but it seems French - nice. What is also nice, impressive even, is the running cost, the lowest of all examined cars and shockingly just a little bit higher than in the 3CV Famal. The reliability and environmental resistance seem solid too, but Jacques has doubts about the latter - while the aluminium panels certainly won’t rust, he’s heard that it can be deceiving and the chassis, unseen, most likely will. Other than that, the car doesn’t excel in anything, being average except for poor safety features and a bit high price.
Quite practical, oui, and rather inexpensive to run, but why on earth it has a sports car engine? Injection, 16 valve, and the salesman talking something about throttles? Neither Jacques nor Mathilde need it, but they’d like an interior that is nicer than in their Famal, not more spartan. Especially at this price. Mediocre drivability and seemingly below average reliability and safety don’t help either.
‘German and boring’ Jacques thinks, but it surely has its advantages, as this is a solid all-rounder, with virtually no weak spots. Well, maybe except for the price, rather on the higher side. And, to complete the German stereotype, it seems really reliable too. Pragmatically minded Jacques likes it, and Mathilde might approve the look too.
Technically quite different and a class larger than the Ritter, but very similar in terms of results. However, similar is not the same, and unfortunately for the Lanea, it’s not quite as good. The main differences are a bit less sure handling and lower - but still good - reliability. It has redeeming qualities though of a bit lower price, a bit more space and a nicer radio. And, somehow, a bit better performance despite a smaller engine.
Brr-rr-rr-rr… Jacques still feels the vibrations of the large I3 when thinking of that car. It surely wasn’t a comfortable ride, not just because of the engine - even the upper class interior didn’t help. And there’s no clear reason for such layout - the car isn’t really cheap to buy nor to run. It also isn’t the easiest to drive, but it’s quite quick. And reasonably rust-proof.
This time a really practical van, with a clever seat layout. It’s very comfortable too, and decently dynamic. Other aspects though are below average, especially the running costs being high, due to really poor economy and a large engine. The price is on the higher side, and rust-proofing and safety seem weak.
Jacques has a tough decision to make, but he thinks he’s done. Now it’s time to talk with Mathilde about it.
-Honey… is Damien asleep? Good. I think I’ve found the right car for us - you remember that Clari wagon?
-That terrible thing? You must be joking!
-My dear, it’s not really terrible, I assure you. It might look a bit odd…
-Odd? Our old Famal looks odd. But that thing…
Jacques patiently explains Mathilde why the Clari Amen’Voi is the perfect car for them, and Mathilde seems more and more convinced - but she still has doubts.
-And what about practicality, space? It’s small, if I remember right.
-Well yes, it is, I agree it might not be perfect in that regard…
-Oh Jacques, we’re changing the car to get something more practical, remember? You and your tables… Gimme your notes!
Jacques silently hands over the notepad, knowing that he’d lost… and that Mathilde is probably right. She studies the scribbles and cut out magazine pages for a while, focused.
-See, you’ve missed the right car, here, right under your nose. The Colombe. It seems you yourself judged it to be about as good, but more practical. And as a bonus, I think it looks very nice.
-Oh, I guess you’re right. So, we’re ordering it?
-Yes. But not in that green!
The final ranking:
Also @Restomod your car would rank 17th if entered properly.
Now it’s time for a little explanation - if I could end on a tie, then the CESMA and Clari would be tied, because even despite the practicality the Amen’Voi is such an impressively good car. According to my points system it won, but it didn’t feel right with the focus on practicality, and the Colombe was more equal in the top priorities. If it was larger, then it would probably have won with no doubts. Vento really proved that looks can be deceiving.
Additional info, scoring tables, reality modifier calculations, extended reviews and other good stuff is coming later this week, hopefully. Thanks for all the entries and participating in all the fun and congrats to all who succeeded, even if only in their own category 
6th? The piece of crap did too well. Should have stuck with RR. Smh my head my smh head.
You probably would have been down with lotto and I if you did. 
Edit: also congrats to @Maverick74 for the win, and with the same body style as my entry.
13th with that junk of a meme? Nice. Overall very fast judging that left nothing to desire, this time a very puristic QFC being close to the original idea of the challenge.
Fighting for the wooden spoon is fun!
I wonder how the game treats the front area for any storage in a RR car? I like to put my fuel caps at the front because to me it makes sense to have a larger tank at the front but I don’t know how the game treats things like fuel usage affecting handling and overall cargo capacity for that layout vs a front engine layout.
Looking at the numbers, it’s probably all summed up, as the total cargo space seems similar with rear engine to that with a front one.
I’ll have an answer in several hours, I hope. If we’re on track for an openbeta update, it would be pretty fun to make the next round an OB dry run.
On August 25th a dev update stated that the open beta would start in ‘2-3 weeks’ and if that’s correct the open beta will be up on Friday
In case you decide not to, I am willing to host.
Other than you, there seems little interest in my fleet challenge, so I’ll be third in line if you pass on this one.
Piffle. I was hoping huge interior room and decent car-like everything else (even 53-something drivability) would’ve won, but oh well. Good round anyway, and commendably timely judging!
Yeah, you do it. I’m out
OK, then!
Hey, look, I haven’t forgotten about that! Sorry it took nearly two weeks, but I didn’t expect I’d be so busy in that time. Anyway, here come all the additional details about me judging your cars. First…
@moroza
Jacques is fascinated by the design of this van - it’s odd, but unlike the old F2, quite ornamental, which makes it look rather upscale. However, this isn’t really carried inside, with the interior still looking unique, but feeling perfectly average. Well, except for the phonograph, that is - Jacques isn’t convinced it would be useful, but apparently that’s standard in the variant they have available right now. The steering is surprisingly responsive for a van, and overall it’s rather easy to handle, considering the size and weight. Also somewhat slow, but not even nearly as much as the F2, and economical in return, so that’s very much ok. The engine has more advantages too - it’s super smooth and silent, overall barely noticeable, which surely makes the ride more comfortable. If only it was a bit cheaper…
@Knugcab
Jacques can’t remember where this is from. Some country starting with A…, probably in Asia? However, it looks quite American, with all that chrome, wood panelling, large size and “coke bottle” shape. Inside it has plenty of space in a surprisingly high quality interior. Another surprise is how light the steering is, despite the size of the car and lack of power assist. But there’s no denying that a larger car takes more attention to handle. That attention however is rewarded by very precise and solid feeling mechanisms. The engine, despite being a bit large and simple, isn’t rough nor loud. In fact it’s quiet, hiding its strong performance a bit - but that has its price at the pump, and in terms of a rather high-rev nature. Eh, if only this wasn’t so expensive overall, and prone to rust, Jacques would love it, even if he can’t, dammit, say where it’s from - Ariana?..
@Texaslav
The boring German, the solid German. Even from the outside it looks just solid and well built. Aside from stereotypes, Jacques likes this very conventional family car. Inside it has two comfortable benches and a large boot, all high quality. Despite the weight and size of the car the steering is nice, although quite obviously it’s not as easy to handle as the much smaller Famal. The engine is a pleasant surprise - it’s rather quiet, smooth, very economical for this size and still providing good performance. And opinions are that those engines are really durable, thanks to a combination of high quality and simplicity - they aren’t new to the market and they had time to prove themselves. Overall there’s not a single bad thing about the car, but it doesn’t excel in most either - quintessentially German.
@Vento
Jacques was used to the oddly formed F2, but here he noticed more and more odd details on a regular, albeit somewhat dated form. A chrome moustache? Incredibly unique rims? Side exhaust? Huge badging? No matter, he won’t let that change his judgement. On the inside the car is more conventional and very reasonable - there are no fancy elements, but the safety features are quite impressive, and everything feels good quality. It’s quite small inside though, and the seats in the third row are both inconvenient to get to and making the boot smaller. Despite the small space the ride is rather comfortable though The steering is light and overall the handling is super easy. Jacques likes the feeling that everything he uses is well built and the car was made with some degree of precision. The engine is simple and very smooth, and not so big, which makes the servicing relatively cheap - the economy is good too. Although Jacques guesses that without the heavy frame and rear wheel drive it could be even better - but still, this feels like a very good car, even if a bit cramped and old-fashioned.
@Maverick74
Jacques looks at the car and thinks that this might be a spiritual successor to their old Super F2 - it’s pretty compact, modern, practical and similar in form. The main difference though is that this is looking quite elegant, not weird. Inside it has a pretty convenient layout with two benches - it will make getting kids in and out easy, as well as having an eye on them during the ride. It’s all well put together too, with not the most fancy, but solid materials - this interior should not only be pleasant to be in, but also last long. Oh, and not only it has a radio, but a really clear sounding one - might help with soothing the kids when they get grumpy. There steering is not power assisted, but light and nice. Jacques really likes the engine - it’s moderately sized, fitting in the 7 CV class, reasonably efficient, much smoother than the old Famal’s boxer twin and much more modern, from what he read. And dealing with the car really well. Overall, all the mechanisms of the car feel precisely built, solid and smooth, and the car is very easy to handle. Since Jacques was a bit worried about rust (the salesman clearly avoided his questions about the topic) he decided to use some of the spare budget to send the car to a shop specialised in conserving cars against it.
17 years later
- Honey, have you seen Damien? - asked Jacques - Where is he?
- I guess he’s left the bathroom already, but I haven’t seen him since he went inside.
- No, he’s not there, not in his room either. Wait, did that young devil take the Colombe again? Oh, I will talk with him when he’s back…
Mathilde sighed.
- I guess we couldn’t have all four kids be obedient…
Meanwhile, a few kilometres away, Damien used all the horses of the old rusty Cesma. He knew the local backroads, he knew no gendarme would stop him here, and he knew he didn’t have much time. He also knew that dad will be furious, at least for a while, but the time with Amelie will be worth it - especially if the practical nature of the car will come into play…
For the start - here’s my rating table: QFC 30 rating - Google Sheets
The upper one are mostly just the raw stats collected, however there are two calculated ones and three with “reality modifiers”, so I’ll explain how those worked. There are also some tech details of the cars on the right, if you’re interested, and somewhere in the first table are my non-stat remarks about the cars.
Since the game seems to completely ignore the cargo space in that stat, as well as in the utility one, I had to somehow factor that in. The problem with that was the huge disparity in cargo space between body types, so I’ve implemented a modifier based on that:
0 - sedan
500 - hatch or van
650 - wagon
This produced realistic looking numbers for each body type. Additionally, I’ve substracted flat 200 for cars that had a third row of seats, since the game seems to substract some comically small value. In effect, the normalised cargo was
CARGO = [in-game cargo] - [3rd row mod] - [body type mod]
Then, there was a seat layou modifier, in which I judged two things - how easy would it be to get each family member in and out of the car, and how convenient would it be for Mathilde to handle the younger kids on the move. Additionally, if you cared to visualise the seat layout, this could have a tiny benefit if the layout would be more practical than default. For the purposes of this modifier I’ve classified the layouts in three categories: 2/2/x, 3/3 and 2/3/x. The modifiers looked like this:
Accessibility:
2/2/x - 0 or 2 for vans
2/3/x - 1 or 3 if the 3rd row faced backwards or sideways - that way you can get in directly from the boot (this layout occurred only in wagons)
3/3 - 3
Convenience:
2/2/x - 0 - logically, Mathilde has to sit with newborn Damien, and with babies it’s useful to have various stuff at hand, so they take two middle seats anyway; the kid aged 2 is the problem here - sitting with Jacques this kid would distract him while he’s driving, while with a sibling aged 7 or, even more so, 5 they could get annoying easily.
2/3/x - 1
3/3 - 1
Both those layouts allow Mathilde to take care of both the youngest children.
Those are just summed up. There is also a flat -3 modifier for rear engines, since the cargo space is divided between two compartments, and the rear one gets heated, which might be undesirable. Then the final practicality modifier is calculated like so:
X = [RR mod] + [layout mod] + [cargo capped to 600 litres * 0,015] - 8
That 8 is just a “magic number” so that the final modifier gets in a nice range around zero. The final modifier is then simply added to the practicality from the game, and the resulting value is rated.
Those two had a common modifier, based on the age of the car model and engine family. The logic behind that is that it’s pretty hard to determine those two things on a brand new model of car - it can be estimated by the company’s record so far, but there’s less certainty. That’s why older designs had a bit more weight put on those.
The modifier is X = ([age of the model] + [age of the family]) / 2 and capped to 10. Then that is multiplied by 0,03 (so the result is a nice 0 - 0,3 range) and added to 0,85 (so the result is a 0,85 - 1,15 range). That is the weight of reliability and env. resistance in their priority categories.
The overrated stat 
It consisted of three measures: top speed, acceleration time and torque to weight ratio. Why not power to weight? Because Jacques wouldn’t rev the car high if he didn’t have to, same with Mathilde. Top speed mattered only up to 150 km/h, as I considered it to be enough of a margin for the car to be nice at lower highway speeds. Also in case anyone got a top speed of less than 100 km/h they’d get negative rating for that, as that would be as slow as the Famal Overall, the calculation was like that:
X = (100 / [acceleration time]) + (([top speed] - 100) / 5) capped to 10 + ((Nm / kg) * 10)
I won’t explain the running cost, as I’ve done that in the first post. All the stats, with practicality after the modifier was applied, were normalised to a 0-100 scale, were 0 was the worst result in the competition and 100 the best. That means if a car got the rating of 50 then in that stat it was perfectly in the middle between the best and the worst car. Then, the ratings of each priority would be summed up, with reliability and env. resistance having their weight modifier applied. Those three sums - for 3, 2 and 1 star priorities - would be then multiplied by 5, 3 and 1 respectively, and the results would be summed to produce the final score. And then I’d move some cars one place down the ranking if they had some issues that the point system couldn’t reflect.
Note: I didn’t write those about every car, only those that were brought down by something in a pretty glaring way to me, so I wanted to point it out so you guys could improve your future designs. Also, I don’t need answers to the questions I ask here, those are for you to think about the design choices. Overall, many of you focused way too much on performance, and thus used needlessly large engines. I think I could’ve just leave performance as a complete non-priority and it would be implied to be one anyway due to the nature of Automation players
@crwpitman1’s Torrent Trickle - the engine was a one big “why” - why such a big I3? For lower cost? A smaller I4 would make more sense and wouldn’t incur a -8.2% comfort modifier. Also the engine has flat +3 everywhere - and while using some quality here and there actually helped some entries, here it’s probably more adding unnecessary cost. Oh, and it’s better to put the more silencing muffler last, not first - every stat is the same except for lower loudness. Aside from the engine, a way too hard suspension killed comfort (-30.6% modifier!), making the really nice interior just an additional cost. Switching to an equivalent I4, dropping the balance shafts, forged internals and quality from the bottom end and exhaust, swapping the mufflers, softening the suspension and making the springs progressive (to keep the load capacity) tripled the comfort, minimally raised the reliability, and dropped the price by 100$. Also the cross-ply tyres were an understandable, given the year, but detrimental move - switching to radials would noticeably improve drivability and also comfort and economy a bit, while dropping the price by another 20$. All that - basically not touching the basic idea for the car except for the I3 - would bump it 4 places up in the ranking, with potentially going another 3 up, since the scores were very close there.
@Restomod’s Sorenia 99T - very poor drivability, reliability, env. resistance, quite poor practicality too. Good comfort and performance. That would be the essence of your car’s actual review. Other than that, it has a pretty weird engine - twin cam, but quite low revving and very strangled. And with unnecessary balance shafts, but that’s a minor detail. Why pay for two cams if you don’t rev high? And why absolutely no rust protection?
@xsneakyxsimx’s Hemsley Asteroid - well, the rear engine is quite obvious. I admire the attempt However, aside from that, the suspension was needlessly hard. As a side note, it’s a really pleasant engine, very quiet and smooth, with nice torque curve and low idle. It didn’t help the scores that much, but I liked it.
@Bbestdu28’s BMA Cariole - in short - worst comfort, best performance. 16v DOHC in 1967 would realistically be very rare high performance stuff, same with throttle per cylinder, and both that combined with mech injection just scream “race engine”. Loudness is pretty high too, not sure if not the highest in the competition. Otherwise it wasn’t tuned too much like one, but still 80 hp out of a 1.5 back then would be definitely “hot” cars territory. Overall, definitely a sports car engine. Another big drawback was the worst interior in the competition - in fact, worse in a way than in the old Famal. Basic/basic was definitely not the way to go. And, to match the sports car theme, the suspension was too hard.
@yakiniku260’s Enso Répertoire - again, 16-valve head back then would be a minority of performance stuff. The engine was also needlessly smoothed - balance shafts and 100 balance mass really weren’t necessary in a small I4. However, all that might have only hurt the cost. The manual locker though hurt the drivability and cost, while not improving any rated stat. The interior smelled of cheese too, with the basic/premium 8 track combo. Going for a premium/premium AM radio would’ve actually not only significantly raised comfort, but also drop the price by 300$. It would’ve hurt the reliability a bit, but with 300$ to spare I guess that could be balanced too.
@Ch_Flash’s Martinet Correur - excellent looks and excellent practicality (best in the competition), but one of the worst running costs and reliability. Partly due to the engine - it had rev stress! And needlessly hard valve springs. Utility tyres were an overkill choice too, given how practical it was anyway, and those hurt comfort end economy a bit. The suspension was a bit too hard too.
@Danicoptero’s Iris Mera - I smelled cheese. While the combo of alu panels and bare steel chassis gave the highest env. resistance score in the game, IRL that would be terrible, as while on the outside the car would look healthy, it could easily be on the verge of breaking in half or detaching it’s own suspension due to structural rust. Especially since the chassis had -2 quality and the body +3. Questionable quality distribution is a running theme in this car, I guess it’s to offset the cost of alu panels: -1 on wheels and brakes, -2 on safety - not the best choice, that last one, with low safety of the alu panels it resulted in second worst safety in the whole competition.
While writing the explanation of the rating system I’ve realised that I incorrectly applied one modifier on your car (seat layout/accessibility) and thus it has lower score than it should - and, unfortunately, that means it’s a place lower in the ranking than it should, even considering my manual corrections. It’s especially bad of an error since that means the hosting queue skipped you due to my fault, and I sincerely apologise you for that, and hope that you’ll forgive me getting lost in my own system. And the lesson is that with a complex scoring system one cannot expect that it will all go easy and nice and not check the correctness of the data entered and calculations processing it.
I think the hard ride is probably just a byproduct of the rear engineness and me going a bit too hard focusing on the drivability stat… I get a bit tunnel visioned like that some times.
I’m glad that the engine was appreciated. Hopefully it means that I am doing some things right when it comes to car engineering at the very least.
