QFC31 - Plumber's best friend (FINAL RESULTS OUT!)

moroza · 22 September 2023 18:12

Best slogan yet, perhaps tied with @Ludvig, but shouldn’t it be “denna här bil”?

In 1981, this may or may not have been true. However, nowadays it’s not uncommon to see 2WD trucks with manual rear lockers - the Toyota Tacoma PreRunner comes with one standard. Engages via an electric motor on a switch, but only on demand and is a true mechanical locker, not glorified traction control via the brakes.

Knugcab · 22 September 2023 18:57

Nope. Hippo’s spelling is correct.

moroza · 22 September 2023 19:05

Huh, then Google Translate’s is wrong.

Speeeed_D3m0n · 22 September 2023 19:43

1981 KENZIE TRANSIT
A adored and loved van and people hauler for the EU Market by a renowned American Manufacturer provides a reliable platform for any hands-on business, including Plumbing.
(Enjoy the artwork :p)

Knugcab · 23 September 2023 08:48

A reminder that the challenge closes in a little more than 25 hours, noon CEST tomorrow sunday the 24th.

This far I have got full submissions from:
@AMuteCrypt
@AndiD
@Ch_Flash
@Danicoptero
@GassTiresandOil
@GeoffGarit
@Happyhungryhippo
@Hilbert
@lotto77
@Ludvig
@Mad_Cat
@mart1n2005
@Maverick74
@MoteurMourmin
@Speeeed_D3m0n
@xsneakyxsimx

Car file sent, ad missing:
@OptimusAlpha

Ad posted, car file missing:
@crwpitman1
@shibusu
@yakiniku260

Shout out if I have missed you!

abg7 · 23 September 2023 16:33

'81 WM Loadman

An efficient, well-packaged, and robust cargo van for the '80s, starting from $8150 AMU.

Knugcab · 23 September 2023 18:58

After an agreement with an user here, that had some good reasons, I have decided to give you some slack when it comes to ads. I still want the car file at the deadline, but you have until at least 9 PM CEST to put up an ad. If it comes in later, you might risk the instabins, depending on when I decide to put them up, but as long as you put your ad up before 9 PM you’re guaranteed to be safe.

Vento · 23 September 2023 19:28

The Salle’Abond arrives. This new Clari van features Clari’s patented ‘Chaque Amble’ drive system which powers all 4 wheels all the time! Incredible! 25.0 mpg! Over 4,500 liters of cargo space!

Buy now!

Restomod · 24 September 2023 02:30

How TF are you guys getting below budget? I’m dumping my stats and still have 10K price!

Maverick74 · 24 September 2023 03:57

You are using the correct techpool, yeah?

xsneakyxsimx · 24 September 2023 04:20

I like building ~~shi~~ econoboxes

moroza · 24 September 2023 09:14

Pipe is best laid in a…

1981 Norðwagen Midgard UD-6x2

Knugcab · 24 September 2023 10:16

OK, everyone except one managed to get their ads in at the original deadline, but since that’s an instabin anyway I start on them here and now

@OptimusAlpha - ???

Yes, “???”, 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

Knugcab · 24 September 2023 14:49

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 doesn’t mean a perfect car, it just means “finished last” and “finished first”, getting a score in between shows how your car placed in relation to the winner and the car finishing last.

After reading through “The Trafikjournalen guide to commercial vehicles 1981”, 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 “race” 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, so…

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 doesn’t 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 “frumpy”.
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 - Norðwagen Midgard DU-6x2
@Vento - Clari Salle’Abond

Mad_Cat · 24 September 2023 15:25

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

moroza · 24 September 2023 18:47

Ilaris comments got mixed up with the Comuline below it.

Knugcab · 24 September 2023 19:04

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.

moroza · 24 September 2023 19:10

Derp, I missed the comparison. Just woke up…

passengerpigeon · 25 September 2023 02:00

Dang, the entry I didn’t have time to finish wouldn’t 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,
“Twin-Force Ordinary Brakes” that will “NEVER require any servicing or repairs related to the brake fluid system!”

xsneakyxsimx · 25 September 2023 04:13

12th isn’t nothing to sneeze at, especially since I chose what is most likely the most impractical choice for engine placement in a van.