You are using the correct techpool, yeah?
I like building shi econoboxes
OK, everyone except one managed to get their ads in at the original deadline, but since thatâs an instabin anyway I start on them here and now
@OptimusAlpha - ???
Yes, â???â, since the naming says nothing about the name of the car. Besides, both trim and variant year are wrong (1980 instead of 1981) and the van has three rows of seats (should be 1).
Going further are:
@abg7
@AMuteCrypt
@AndiD
@Ch_Flash
@crwpitman1
@Danicoptero
@GassTiresandOil
@GeoffGarit
@Happyhungryhippo
@Hilbert
@Lotto77
@Ludvig
@Mad_Cat
@mart1n2005
@Maverick74
@moroza
@MoteurMourmin
@shibusu
@Speeeed_D3m0n
@Vento
@xsneakyxsimx
@yakiniku260
7 Likes
RESULTS PART 1
Here we have all the vehicles not going to the finals. Also, I have put up a scoring system saying just how well the vehicles stack up against each other, where the winner will get 100 points, last place will get 0 points. So, it only is there to give you a kind of reference how good your car scored against the others. 0 does not mean a worthless car, 100 doesnât mean a perfect car, it just means âfinished lastâ and âfinished firstâ, getting a score in between shows how your car placed in relation to the winner and the car finishing last.
After reading through âThe Trafikjournalen guide to commercial vehicles 1981â, Jan-Erik decided to not take the following cars for a test drive.
ASAKURA Sakai - OFR-4 MultiDrive
22nd place - 0 pts.
@MoteurMourmin
PROS: It might be a ripoff of the Subaru Brat, but it still looks decent.
CONS: Bad fuel economy, high service costs, worst in round reliability (70), very low driveability, low comfort, disappointing offroad stats despite 4 wheel drive, worst in round when weighting practicality/utility/cargo space.
NOTEWORTHY: Extreme amounts of front downforce makes it oversteer, ruining driveability. Best in round prestige (24.5, not factored in). Highest engine loudness in round (59.2!, not factored in). Dirtiest emissions of the cars running unleaded (6206.3, not factored in).
Canmo Eureka V6
21st place - 22.5 pts.
@crwpitman1
PROS: Low service costs, best in round weather resistance (42.7), decent offroad capability.
CONS: Very high purchase price, worst in round fuel economy (16.1 litres/100 km), questionable reliability, very low driveability, low comfort, low safety rating, styling a bit on the brutalist side.
NOTEWORTHY: Solid axle up front and semi trailing arms in the rear is not a combination you will find very often on IRL vehicles. 3 speed manual a bit cheap for 1981, even if it might still have been used in some american commercial vehicles. Largest in round engine (2799 cc), longest in round wheelbase (325 cm), longest in round overall length(487 cm), largest in round width (208 cm), heaviest in round vehicle (1468 kg).
Halvson Harrier Ute S6
20th place - 26.2 pts.
@lotto77
PROS: Low service costs, high safety rating, relatively nice and clean styling.
CONS: Very high purchase price, very low reliability, very low driveability, low comfort, very low offroad capability, low rating when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
Malva Betula 1.9i L Express
19th place - 31.7 pts
@Ch_Flash
PROS: Fuel efficient, sleek and modern looks that still could have been realistic for the era.
CONS: High service costs, very low reliability, very low driveability, mediocre offroad capability, scores low when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
Larunsen Vanguard
18th place - 32.1 pts.
@GeoffGarit
PROS: Low service costs, reasonable safety, best in round offroad score (29.8), scores good when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
CONS: Very high purchase price, low reliability, very low driveability, worst in round comfort (3.5), styling a bit bland.
NOTEWORTHY: With solid front axle, basic interior (both of them reasonable for an 80s van though), a very strange brake tuning with very small rotors and the brake pads set at 100 (never do that on a street car, is my suggestion here, they are named âraceâ at that level for a reason, increase brake size instead), and an engine with a deafening noise, I am surprised that it has any comfort score at all. Probably saved only by its power steering. Most powerful engine in round (110.6 hp). The only vehicle using anything else than an open diff (auto locker).
Globus Duratrans 1321D
17th place - 38.1 pts.
@Happyhungryhippo
PROS: Reasonable fuel economy, very high score of utility/practicality/cargo space weighted together.
CONS: High service costs, very low driveability, disappointing rust protection, very low safety rating, like all old vehicles that have been facelifted into oblivion, the aesthetics suffer a bit.
NOTEWORTHY: Faux diesel, but that is just a lore thing and was not factored in at judging.
Kenzie Transit
16th place - 40 pts.
@Speeeed_D3m0n
PROS: Low service costs, best in round safety (43.2), decent looks, best in round score when cargo space/practicality/utility is weighted together.
CONS: Very low reliability, worst in round driveability (46.2), very low comfort, worst in round offroad score (7.1)
WM Loadman
15th place - 48.5 pts.
@abg7
PROS: Fuel efficient, best in round driveability (63, tie), reasonable safety, high score when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
CONS: Highest in round service costs ($649.2), mediocre reliability, subpar rust protection, low offroad score, bland styling.
NOTEWORTHY: Only entry with no brake fade whatsoever. Highest in round top speed (168 km/h). Fastest in round acceleration (10.1 s). Best in round cornering (0.836 G). Shortest in round brake distance (39.8 m). Quietest in round engine (28.8).
Swanson AUV-25 GV
14th place - 49.5 pts.
@Ludvig
PROS: Very high safety rating
CONS: Highest in round purchase price ($8990), high service costs, low driveability, cartoonish aesthetics
NOTEWORTHY: Highest in round torque (200.1 Nm). Best in round throttle response (41.4). A better vehicle than the pros/cons list might fool you into since many stats are in the higher mid range.
Ilaris Iscal 2.2 CDI
13th place - 55 pts.
@shibusu
PROS: Fuel efficient, high driveability, decent comfort, relatively high safety rating.
CONS: Very high purchase price, expensive service costs, styling looks slapped together and more 1991 than 1981, low score when utility/practicality/cargo space are weighted together.
Comuline 1.5
12th place - 55.3 pts.
@xsneakyxsimx
PROS: Fuel efficient, decent comfort, very high score when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
CONS: High service costs, mediocre reliability, low safety rating.
NOTEWORTHY: I have nothing against the styling per se, but like the Ilaris it feels a bit too futuristic, maybe like something fron 1988-89. The only rear engined entry in the round. Staggered tyres, not that realistic, but this is after all QFC and I know how much of a mess RR driveability is, soâŚ
Marlin
11th place - 60 pts.
@yakiniku260
PROS: Best in round fuel economy (5.9 litres / 100 km). Low service costs. Reasonable offroad capacity.
CONS: Questionable reliability. Worst in round safety (26, tie). Styling doesnât do it for me, looks too much like a chopped off hatchback (which it is probably supposed to be, but still). Very low score when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
NOTEWORTHY: Nice job with the cargo, too bad it is not judged, but still.
Kessel K4 Pro Van
10th place - 65 pts.
@GassTiresandOil
PROS: Decent driveability, best in round comfort (22.1), decent rust protection, high score of practicality/utility/cargo space weighted together.
CONS: High service costs, very low reliability, low safety rating, looks a bit âfrumpyâ.
NOTEWORTHY: Feels a bit shitboxy with front drum brakes in 1981 and a gravel in a paint shaker smooth inline 3, but if it works it works.
Valiant Ventis Sports Utility
9th place - 65.9 pts.
@mart1n2005
PROS: Fuel efficient, decent comfort, reasonable safety rating, relatively stylish and period correct.
CONS: High service costs, very low score when weighting practicality/utility/cargo space together.
NOTEWORTHY: Best in round sportiness (9.6)
Moravia Koza 1600
8th place - 68 pts.
@Maverick74
PROS: Fuel efficient, reasonable driveability, very good rust protection, decent offroad score, relatively stylish.
CONS: Not very comfortable, very low safety rating, very low score when weighing practicality/utility/cargo space together.
NOTEWORTHY: Did not finish third. Why such a high roll angle, is it supposed to be a boat?
Hayaku Compact Delivery
7th place - 69.1 pts.
@Hilbert
PROS: Very good fuel economy, low service costs, very good driveability.
CONS: Breaks as often as a yellow Opel Astra, low comfort, low safety rating, low offroad capability, will certainly not win any beauty contests, low score when cargo space/practicality/utility is weighed together.
NOTEWORTHY: Shortest vehicle in round (347 cm). Cleanest emissions (734.3)
Kalisz Tancerz 1100 P Van Export
6th place - 75.3 pts.
@Mad_Cat
PROS: By far the lowest purchase price in round ($5470). Very good fuel economy. Lowest in round service costs ($323). Decent offroad score.
CONS: Very low reliability, terrible comfort, very low safety rating, aesthetics authentic for a shitbox, sure, but that means that it is certainly not a looker, very low score when cargo capacity / utility / practicality is weighted together.
NOTEWORTHY: Smallest in round engine (1096 cc). Lowest in round power (41.7 hp). Lowest in round torque (75.2 Nm). Shortest wheelbase in round (218 cm, barely qualifies). Narrowest vehicle in round (154 cm). Lightest vehicle in round (696.3 kg). Lowest in round prestige (10.8). Worst in round throttle response (16.7). Worst in round engine smoothness (32). Most unreliable engine in round (58.4).
GOING FURTHER TO THE FINALS:
@AMuteCrypt - AMM Sarek II Van E-spec
@AndiD - Mara Irena 1.3 TR van
@Danicoptero - Tarquini Freccia FPU
@moroza - NorĂ°wagen Midgard DU-6x2
@Vento - Clari SalleâAbond
12 Likes
6th place with the glorious Polish van? I take this as a win 
Seems like I got the polishness right too: Very cheap to buy and own, but also very unreliable, slow, and uncomfortable 
Ilaris comments got mixed up with the Comuline below it.
Nope, I think you misread it. What I meant was that the Ilaris felt a bit too futuristic for 1981, and so also the Comuline.
Derp, I missed the comparison. Just woke upâŚ
Dang, the entry I didnât have time to finish wouldnât have been instabinned for cheesing costs with dual-leading-shoe manual front drum brakes - or as the VME PR team likes to euphemistically call them,
âTwin-Force Ordinary Brakesâ that will âNEVER require any servicing or repairs related to the brake fluid system!â
12th isnât nothing to sneeze at, especially since I chose what is most likely the most impractical choice for engine placement in a van.
FINALS
With 5 vans picked as potential purchases, early in the morning Jan-Erik stepped into the Primus Astrona diesel he had borrowed from his brother, there was far between the dealers here up north and he still had quite many vans he wanted to take for a test drive.
The first stop was at the AMM dealership. Stepping into it, he read a sign for advertising standing on the floor. âCan you afford to not buy Swedish?â. Food for thought, indeed. Because when he found a Sarek II Van in the showroom, he realized that this was probably the closest to a Duett he could find nowadays. A Swedish, wagon-based body on frame van, with an inline 4 driving the leaf sprung rear axle. âYou had a Duett, you said?â, the salesman spoke to him, âwell, unlike the other Swedish brand, we are indeed still listening to what our customers wantâ.
The boxy van standing in front of him was not really a beauty, but none of the vans he had decided to test drive was to be honest, he realized he had to sacrifice style for practicality in this case. On the other hand, the Sarek didnât seem to be all that roomy, and like the Duett it lacked side doors, an addition that he would have welcomed on his new van after all. But it could take a huge payload on the other handâŚ
It was the most expensive of all the candidates, but the salesman tried to convince him that the rust protection was made for the harsh scandinavian climate and that even the mechanics would last forever, showing him statistics that AMM had the least amount of failures on the annual safety inspection of all the commercial vehicle brands, so it would be worth it in the long run. âAlso, the fuel economy is stunning, thanks to the advanced engine, it has dual camshafts, just like a Mercedes or Jaguar!â.
A test drive didnât show any surprises, it was honest and drove like he would have expected. Certainly not a sports car, with sloppy handling and a bit lacking brake bite, but that wasnât what he was looking for anyway. He wasnât totally convinced just yet, but it could after all not be ruled out when he only had driven this one so farâŚ
Some people had been hinting that the MARA dealership really was some spy central hidden into a car dealer. Maybe, maybe not, but unlike the other car from the other side of the curtain, the Mara could not be ruled out. It was the second lowest in price after the Polish Salon replica, and although even the Mara looked expensive next to the Kalisz, he was convinced that it should give him more vehicle for the money. Also, out of all the remaining vehicles, he liked the styling of the Mara most of them all, even if that wasnât that much of a benchmark.
âNot only is it an economical car to purchaseâ, the salesman said, âit is also sparse on fuel, cheap to service and will last in the long run!â. Yeah, Jan-Erik thought, the mechanics will, but the Mara Irena has been around for a long while and he had seen some examples showing frightening amounts of rust⌠Also, like the AMM it lacked side doors, and wasnât it really a little on the small side?
The test drive, once again, didnât show any huge surprises. It was rather passenger car-like to drive, albeit a bit old fashioned, everything having its roots in the vehicle being built on an old passenger car platform after all. He also thought that the car felt more sturdy than it looked and had some confidence that it could cope fairly well with yet another moose fight.
The reputation TARQUINI had was quite the opposite. Mediocre build quality but a good protection against rust. Already slamming the door and hearing the rattling in the showroom somehow scared him, the van felt tinny and the question was if the roof should even cope with a cat this time. Also, even if his plumbing equipment wasnât all that heavy, he was a bit worried about the low payload it could take. He didnât like the almost overly simplistic styling that was broken up with a weird tailgate, butâŚ
The salesman showing him the expected costs for fuel and servicing cheered him up a bit, since it would indeed be economical to run. Taking it for a test drive, he was also surprised by how well the van drove. It could as well have been any modern passenger car. It should also be easy to load through the side door and actually took reasonable amounts of cargo - if the suspension didnât bottom out, of course.
NORĂWAGEN had always been an oddball choice, and he didnât think that their out of this world styling did adapt to a van body all that smooth. It wasnât among the cheapest vans to buy, neither to service, but it was supposed to be frugal on gas, and known for a great reliability record, as well as rust protection. It also was reasonably practical. But what surprised him most was the test drive. It was so nimble and easy to handle that it could as well have been any compact car, and meanwhile, it also was very comfortable. Though, he felt a bit closer to the elements than he would have liked to in the forward control van. But overall, it was a pleasant experience.
Somewhat cheaper than the NorĂ°wagen was the CLARI. It was also supposed to be very cheap to service, and somewhat thirstier than the NorĂ°wagen but still reasonable. It was another forward control van, but a more modern body, that probably could cope with the crash better. Once again, he was not fond of the looks, but they could work for what it was, and the salesman nodded when he asked if he could get one in a more subtle colour than the pastel cyan on the vehicle in the showroom. The cargo area was both large and practical, and overall it didnât feel like if it had really the same build quality as the NorĂ°wagen, the rust protection also felt a bit more questionable.
It didnât have the same comfort either, but still not bad, and it was almost as easy and fun to drive. It was far from a racer, fact is that it felt sluggish compared to the old Duett, but quick enough for what it was, after all. Overall, when comparing the two forward control vans, the NorĂ°wagen felt sharper overall, and would probably stand the test of time better, but the Clari would be safer, more practical and more economical.
FINAL RANKINGS
5th place
AMM Sarek II Van E-Spec
5th place - 84.1 pts.
@AMuteCrypt
PROS: Very sparse on fuel, best in round reliability (85.6), very good rust protection, very high offroad score.
CONS: One of the more expensive vehicles, questionable safety, styling feels a bit blocky and brutalist, very low score when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
NOTEWORTHY: Maybe a DOHC engine in 1981 with a very mild cam and one eco carb would be seen as fuel economy cheese in something like CSR, but hey, this is QFC so who cares? Worst in round cornering (0.581 G). Worst in round stopping distance (53.5 m). Highest payload in round (2512.7 kg). Interesting when one is thinking about it that this vehicle is more similar to a Duett than what meets the eye, and it really had its bright sides, but in the end wasnât worth the money among sharper competitors.
4th place
Tarquini Freccia FPU
4th place - 85.3 pts.
@Danicoptero
PROS: Very sparse on fuel, relatively low service costs, very high driveability, very resistant against rust, high score when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
CONS: Questionable reliability, worst in round safety (26, tie), very low offroad capability, aesthetics a mix of overly simplistic cues and a weird tailgate.
NOTEWORTHY: Lowest in round payload (377.2 kg, even if I didnât put so much emphasis on it, thatâs kind of meh for a van, right?). Overall a vehicle with some strong points, being let down by some really weak ones.
3rd place
Mara Irena 1.3 TR Van
3rd place - 85.3 pts.
@AndiD
PROS: Reasonable purchase price (the only vehicle that didnât seem all that expensive compared to the Kalisz, even if the difference was rather large between them), very good fuel economy, low service costs, reasonable safety.
CONS: Worst in round weather resistance (23.6), looks a bit generic and lacks depth and sharpness, very low score when practicality, utility and cargo space is weighted together.
NOTEWORTHY: Once again Mara shines in a round where cheap and rugged vehicles are asked for. Though, it falls short on its lack of rust protection, and it was maybe on the small side.
2nd place
NorĂ°wagen Midgard DU-6x2
2nd place - 93.5 pts
@moroza
PROS: Very sparse on fuel, very good reliability, best in round driveability (63, tie), very high comfort, very good rust protection
CONS: Service costs on the higher side, questionable safety, NorĂ°wagen design language doesnât adapt all that well to the van body
NOTEWORTHY: Best in round engine smoothness (88.1). Best in round engine reliability (80.1). A vehicle with many strong points, that gets a bit hit by mainly economical reasons.
1st place
Clari SalleâAbond
1st place - 100 pts.
@Vento
PROS: Good fuel effiency. Very low service costs. Very high driveability. Reasonable comfort. Reasonable rust protection. Relatively high safety rating. Decent score when practicality/utility/cargo space is weighted together.
CONS: Styling feels a slight bit off.
NOTEWORTHY: Lowest in round top speed (126 km/h). Slowest in round acceleration (19 seconds 0-100). Worst in round sportiness (0). Even if it wonât win any beauty contests, it clearly shows signs of improvement compared to earlier cars. Other than the aesthetics, a vehicle more or less free from weak points where it counts. Not as sharp as the NorĂ°wagen overall maybe, but sells at a lower price. He could not overlook that when all things were summed up, this looked more or less like the perfect vehicle for his business, and hence the decision was made - the replacement for the crashed Volvo Duett will be a Clari SalleâAbond - but he ordered one in white instead of pastel cyan.
Congratulations, @Vento !
14 Likes
YupâŚ
Typical Mara - 80% of what you want for 50% of what you can afford.
Typical Clari - toy-store styling (though it has indeed improved) with near-perfect engineering and good value.
Typical NorĂ°wagen - eccentric form, first-rate function (barring the occasional hiccup, most often safety), priced accordingly.
I dislike straight-4 and couldnât get a flat-4 to work as well, so mine had a 2.2L straight-six with MPEFI. Considering the scenarios of running out of fuel or breaking down in Lapland, the hope was that the economy and reliability would make up for the service costs.
49% of developent time was spent on engineering, 49% on modeling the upper front, 1% on attempting to come up with a better pipe joke, 1% on styling the rest and at the last minute. Though Iâm not sure more styling wouldâve made it better.
Good round, and commendably quick! Thanks @Knugcab and congats @Vento!
2 Likes
That analysis is spot on.
1 Like
Iâm actually happy that Vento won with this, as it proves that he is a great at building cars.
Welll done @Vento 
3 Likes
Yay thanks everyone super happy I won and proud 
2 Likes
If you are able to host QFC32, please state it explicitly in this thread. Anyway, congratulations on winning your first challenge - youâve come a long way since your early days!
QFC 32 will be posted within the next 57 minutes
Thanks. Hereâs hoping its rule set is one we can all sink our teeth into.