well, now that you said that and I look the car in that angle… I must agree it looks like a toad haha.
oh well this was my first car review since i joined the forum. good luck for the next ones 
1 Like
Not everyone will find this surprising, but I did. I was expecting at least one pre-1989 entry here to qualify for the finals, when in fact, none of them did after judging their merits against their demerits.
How off base where all the classic cars submitted? I’m wondering if anything from the 60’s and earlier would have had any chance.
For my car I could have made it more economical at the expense of any power, but the comfort would have been an issue short of having power steering and and automatic gearbox which I didn’t feel would have been right at all
1 Like
Hard to say. The only 60s car was the Hamfa, and then there was the Condor from 1970. I am not trying to bash them now, but to put it frankly, you can get better stats on a 60s/70s vehicle than both of them had. Your Knightwick was the best one, and compared to the rest of the field, it didn’t really shine in any particular era but it wasn’t exactly bad either. This was a round where the flawless vehicle didn’t exist (which is a reason why I think I succeeded since you had to really try to find the best way here) and where it was very even at the top despite being a field of rather different cars. Being so equal and being QFC, I have taken help from spreadsheet judging, and I have to say that among the 10-15 or so best performers, it was so equal that I guess just small changes in stats could have made the order quite a bit different.
With that said, I think that playing Auto should be about much more than just adjusting sliders until you get nice numbers, so spreadsheets are just part of the truth, but even with my own subjective thoughts weighed in, I think the winner got it quite right, that’s what I can say this far.
5 Likes
DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT!!!
" *Car trim year 1984 - engine family and variant year 1985."
HOW THE HELL DID I MISS THAT?
It would have been the perfect car for her…
My (stupid) bad.
1 Like
PART 2B - THE BARGAIN BIN (1990-2009)
I could have filled this space up with some text you would never read anyway. But honestly speaking, the interlude is not interesting so let’s go. I don’t know why I wrote this, because you didn’t read it anyway.
ANKE: What if I sort on somewhat newer cars? Like…let’s say from where we left, 1990, until…2009 maybe? Can that be the most sane purchase? I mean, they have probably lost most of their original purchase price by now, and I will still get a more modern car.
ROBERT: Once again, yes and no. The good thing, well, it seems like you have gotten it. The drawbacks is possibly that we’re still talking about rather old cars where more or less anything can break, while they are getting more complicated to repair than older cars, and you still won’t get the advantages of a car made in the last years. Still, I guess you are onto something…
ANKE: If we sort by cheapest first, for $9009, someone is offering a 1991 CAVALIERE NOBILE STALLONE SPIDER SERIES…phew…TWO. @Happyhungryhippo
ANKE: I like it. I mean, it is not the most gorgeous car in the world maybe, but it would still suit me very well I think. I feel like something like this was what I had in mind, and the price is fair, but is it worth it?
ROBERT: Well, to start with its drawbacks, not to reinforce Fruinian car stereotypes, but this is another car where services will be a bit on the expensive side and reliability can be questionable, especially after almost 30 years. It is also a bit too old to have the most extensive list of safety features. But it should be said that it is a fast and comfortable car that will be sparse on the fuel drops, so it sure has its strong sides too.
ANKE: Also, for $9750, we have a 2009 YANGWOO QUACK 1.8 CABRIO @Hilbert
ANKE: Uhm…this was a car I liked to start with, but the more I look at it the more doubtful I am. Something with the lights and other detailing feels rather off, especially in the back. Your opinion?
ROBERT: This is a budget car at its finest, sure, not as extreme as the Mara but there is a reason you get an almost 20 years newer car for just a little more money than the Stallone Spider. Easy but utterly boring to drive and with mediocre performance. Wouldn’t call it bad, though. A car for someone that only wants a convertible, but also one that is less primitive than the Mara. However, for some reason that is hard to explain it is really comfortable, though.
ANKE: For $10091 someone is offering a 2003 COLERE SPORT SPIRALE AZURE 1800 GT-A, cough cough. @z2bbgr
ANKE: Cute little chubby thing indeed, sure, not the same sleek elegance as in some of the sports cars we have been going through, but I like it!
ROBERT: It is comfortable, easy to drive and sparse on the fuel drops. But for a relatively modern car, the reliability is questionable. Also, it won’t be the cheapest on the market to service. But when it works, it is absolutely enjoyable I would say.
ANKE: For $10811 I can get a 1999 LVC LCS2 160 @abg7
ANKE: I feel that I am almost forcing myself to like this, but I actually can’t. The proportions are weird and all the details are just a mess of different shapes. It could have been good but it really isn’t.
ROBERT: There are more reliable cars too, as well as more comfortable cars. However, it is a really nice car to drive as I would say. Both fun and easy to drive, and with frisky performance. Another good thing is that it is easy on the fuel drops. If you don’t like it, you don’t like it, I guess, but it really isn’t a bad choice.
ANKE: Well, I guess I have time to think about it. The next one looks more promising at least to me. A 1999 NORÐWAGEN LOKI STK-6x2 for $11666. @moroza
ANKE: Wow. Usually I think that Norðwagens are a bit too oddball for me, almost a bit scary in their styling, haha, but this is a really beautiful car, and it also seems to be very fitting for what I am looking for. Can’t say anything else than that I love this, but what is it like to live with?
ROBERT: It is fast, and the driving characteristics really matches its performance. It is not the cheapest to service, but on the other hand it has decent fuel economy. Safety is rather mediocre but other than that it is a good-but-not-great car overall.
ANKE: Noticed. Eating a far bit further into the budget is the 1998 HALVSON PERFORMA SPORT 2.0 at $12844. @lotto77
ANKE: Well, the risk is that most cars can look bland after looking at the Norðwagen, but this one can somewhat withstand even that test. Good looking, if not gorgeous styling and it really seems to have the right “spirit” for what I am looking for.
ROBERT: The drawbacks are that it is a car that you should take it easy with, because it is not the easiest to drive and if you wrap it around a tree it doesn’t offer the best crash protection either. To put it this way, it is far from slow so I guess it can easily happen. If you take it easy, however, it is a really good car. They rarely break down, and won’t consume much gasoline, also, they are really comfortable to drive. Not too bloody when it comes to service costs either.
ANKE: Seems like it won’t at least ruin me just because the price is a bit high then, and this 1995 TARSKE CF420 SPYDER is even more expensive anyway at $13469. @Danicoptero
ANKE: But it is indeed gorgeous and really something I can picture myself driving around in, if it’s only good enough the price could actually be justified.
ROBERT: It generally is, yes. The fuel economy is good and it won’t give you any trouble, the mechanics are of superb quality. Also, it really is a blast to drive with sporty driving characteristics and frisky performance. The sportiness comes at the cost of comfort, though, and it is not cheap to service. Still, it could be a sane purchase if one really wants it.
ANKE: The next one is this 1996 SOMERVELL SUNSTORM SPYDER for $13964. @Texaslav
ANKE: I like the looks, even if parts of it is maybe a bit simplistic, but it has gorgeous lines and feels suitable for me overall. Would you say that it is worth its price, though?
ROBERT: A bit doubtful actually. It is rather fast and economical, but other than that it doesn’t really stand out. Mediocre driveability and safety, a bit high service costs, and not better than average at other stats overall. I would say that you can get better value for your money.
ANKE: We are at the expensive end now, a 2000 SWYSH SPH will set me back $14053. @Snarklz
ANKE: But at least it is chubby and cute, and stands out from the crowd in a positive way. Doesn’t really look dated for being 20 years old either.
ROBERT: Even if it really doesn’t look sporty, it might actually surprise you, it is really fast with its 287 hp V8, yet it is very nice and pleasant to drive despite having that monster of an engine. However, you will notice that when it is time for servicing, it is bloody expensive. Also, I guess you could expect better comfort in this type of car that did cost a fair bit of money when new.
ANKE: And finally, the most expensive car of this search, a 1998 OZOKU HAYABUSA 3.0 for $14640. @Calja-05
ANKE: I am kind of split on this one. Generally not a bad looking car, but I am really not sure that I want something that looks like a supercar, feels like if this one is just a bit too much. The same could probably be said about the price.
ROBERT: Its performance lives up to its looks, though, as well as its driving dynamics. Despite that, it is not too thirsty on the fuel drops, and is actually very easy to drive. But yeah, service costs…they are almost in the supercar territory too.
ANKE: Well, I have interest in some of the cars here, I will think things over…
CARS GOING FURTHER:
1991 CAVALIERE NOBILE STALLONE SPIDER SERIES TWO - @Happyhungryhippo
1998 HALVSON PERFORMA SPORT 2.0 - @lotto77
1999 NORÐWAGEN LOKI STK-6x2 - @moroza
2003 COLERE SPORT SPIRALE AZURE 1800 GT-A @z2bbgr
10 Likes
You forgot to ping me as you binned me, shitass 
ED: not anymore
I didn’t want you to find out, because I care about your feelings after what you told me yesterd…JUST KIDDING, fixed it now.
Ribs aside, I probably shoulda submitted the 2001-ish model. No downside and I could justify a bunch more goodies in-lore.
Relatively positive review. Honestly, I’m pleased that my design made an impression. I thought that going with the quirky short wheelbase SUV would be something fun and different to the typical sporty offerings of this class. And it sounds like it paid off. Still truly impressed with some of the other designs however, great work all, even the insta-bins.
Just pure luck that the update dropped and allowed for a resub though, because your original price broke the budget…
Well, I’m glad I finally made a non-scary car; I feel I’ve accomplished something that took time and effort. But I have to wonder what the context is for calling 55.0 Sport with 209hp “un-sporty”? For reference, CW5’s sportiest car was 54.3 with 360hp.
Eh, thanks for pointing that out, the fault is all mine since I found out that I by accident had written down the comfort score (26.9) as the sportiness one, no wonder I was surprised that the car really should have done better then. I really should have double checked it better… 
2 Likes
Yeah, that car out-sports mine by more than a fair margin. Cheaper and just as swanky, too
STK = Sport Touring Kabrio. There’s certainly an SK that’ll knock her teeth fillings out (plus a GSK that’ll also drain her retirement fund), but we tried for a balance here…
Mistakes happen, it’s understandable (and part of why FC1 is still in progress).
OK, this shouldn’t happen, but it did, and maybe it easily happens when you put emphasis on the “Q” in “QFC”.
Luckily, this didn’t change anything more I had done this far, other than @Hilbert being out of the finals and @moroza going further. Still, none of the pre 1990 cars will go further.
Thanks a lot for pointing it out in time. This feels shameful for me, but eh, not much more to do about it now compared to what I already have done, I guess.
(Also, I like your “scary” designs but I guess Hetvesian midlife crisis hairdressers are a fair bit less occult than I am, lol)
3 Likes
Stray question…how are used car prices calculated in QFC?
Aw, I figured the hair dresses would’ve enjoyed an easy driving experience. It gets the job done and for whatever reason, it’s insanely comfortable.
Welp, better luck next time.
TBF, that kind of differs from time to time. There has been some “used car price calculators” but I don’t know if I have seen one being used for a while. This time I simply figured out 15K as the max budget for a new car, and roughly calculated some maximum numbers for used cars myself (they aren’t fully representing reality because fully realistic numbers would, for various reasons, give somewhat skewed results for a challenge too). So, to calculate the prices this time I just saw, how many % of the budget is the car using, then I calculated that percentage on 15K.
You were after all in the finals until I corrected Moroza’s number so not a bad entry at all.