QFC38 - Wheels Down Under (Submissions Closed)

Yeah, the Fission is based on the '89 Ice Cream body. The late-00s styling thing is probably my fault… I changed that up last minute (last few hours) and tried pushing it 2 or 3 years forward. I am very satisfied with the result. I’d like to play around with Ice Cream a little more and see what I can get out of it.

How (i think) my brain was working

So… take an 09 Fusion, make it the size of a Taurus, and add a little bit of '10 Fusion, put it into Automation using a well-shaped Ice Cream body, then forget halfway through that the last year of it is 2014 and not 2012. Then, later down the line, correct this last-minute (last few hours) by going a tiiiny bit more Japanese instead of American and/or European with the styling.

The front kinda became its own thing, separate from the Fusion and Taurus.

Theres… Mercury? Lincoln? maybe a little Saab in the rear. All late 2000s-ish models, another thing that kept it from being more early/mid-10s.

So if you really wanted something to explain it all, then the design language probably was a few years behind.

Everything is mixed into it…
It’s everything!

2 Likes

You could have just made it like a facelift of a 2009 model instead of trying to push it into 2014 like that

3 Likes

The '87 Boat and '89 Ice Cream body sets (in all sizes) are among my favorite body sets for all manner of late-'80s, '90s, and even early '00s builds - both of them have such a wide range of morphs that you can make them as rounded or boxy (for the era, anyway) as you want. Using them for 2010s cars is possible, but with difficulty (especially without inventive fixture choice, placement, and sizing).

1 Like
Let's Get The Uglies Out, Shall We?


Instabins

If you’re pinged at any point in this round, you dun goofed and I will now bonk you for it.

9 entries out of 26 got instabinned, 3 of which could’ve fixed their issues by simply clicking two different buttons at two different places in the engine designer. Solid stuff.


Halvson G3E Harrier Sport-X by @lotto77

Instabin reason: WES 8.

image

Literally had to fiddle with these. Would’ve taken 30 seconds max. Shame because decent entry otherwise.

Rear styling was done very nicely and looks better than most Holden rear ends. Can’t say the same about the front. The outline of a nice styling is there, but it needs more depth. Right now it’s about as flat as Keira Knightley.

:wastebasket:


MKB4K by @OptimusAlpha

Instabin Reason: TRX Tyres, questionable engineering, styling.

image

TRX Tyres, aka tyres that end on 0s instead of 5s. Not for standard road and consumer usage.

Why does it have 2 lower fascias? There are better ways to do the Lexus/Honda covered middle grille look, and this isn’t one of them.

You really don’t need to align the lights with the seams perfectly. That’s not a thing. Or make your own custom seams.


Roamer Park by @Mausil

Instabin Reason: Extremely Questionable Engineering Decisions

AlSi 4 banger in 2014, pretty normal shit, right?

???

image

Ogey.

Huh.

The car doesn’t know what it wants to be. It’s got a 6 speed manual with a helical diff but it has adaptive air suspensions. It has AlSi for weight saving but it also has cast iron internals. Not mentioning the looks because… it certainly looks like a car but that’s about it.


Forrest Motors Mako 270S by @JustARandomCrackhead

Instabin Reason: Extremely Questionable Engineering Decisions

Let me get this straight. This is a partial carbon fibre, semi spaceframe, Rear Engine and RWD 7 speed auto, 1.2 ton weighing superlite sportscar with staggered tyres, solid rear discs, 3 seats at the back, electric steering and passive sway bars. The alsi block/head engine has 5 valves but somehow also has cast iron crank and low friction pistons???

This 184 hp producing engine has the opposite issue of a first gen GT86. The GT86 torque falls flat for a bit and then goes up again. This takes the torque all the way to 242nm and then just falls straight below 160nm from then on, while the horsepower just stays stagnant.

Not to mention the first gen GT86 would do 6s or even under while costing less, unlike this car at 6.6s. Partial Carbon Fiber, I remind you.


Shibuya XBS 2.5T Quadcoupe @ArizonaCaseo

Instabin Reason: ABS only, illegal car

image

Driving aids are a requirement in the modern world in most countries. Yes, I do love my no aid, all analog race cars and this isn’t supposed to be one.

Certainly looks like a car, almost reminds me of the models from GTA San Andreas. Badging too big. Pretty cheap but it also has an all steel construction and pretty terrible drivability compared to the competition. Comfort is high up there, but that’s more of a cheese reason than the car actually being very comfortable.


Uyemura Magistra RK @doot

Instabin Reason: WES 9

image

My guy… You have a pushrod V6 you oughta be more careful about this stuff.

Very cute front, unfortunately not done by you.

Forget the whole rear, what is that ducktail supposed to be???


Auburn Tungsten Limited AU-Spec by @nate21

Instabin Reason: WES 7

Great looker, dig the E60 eagle-eye ish headlights, side and rear also look very coherent. Unfortunately, you have committed Volkswagen.

image

More or less solidly engineered otherwise. A car like this would probably have all arounded vented discs at this point, and it’d definitely have an undertray of some sort at the very least. Standard interior at this price is kinda shit though. Work on your techpool allocation.


Pittsburgh Premonition Estate by @Rise_Comics

Instabin Reason: ABS Only, Illegal Car

image

Same offense as the Shibuya, ABS only in a 2014 car would be illegal almost pretty much anywhere, let alone Australia.

This SICK (not really) RS6 wannabe lookin-ass has premium interior with basic infotainment. Classic minmax. Also an 8 speed slushbox, epic!

Turbo takes 5 business days to reach boost. More Epic!!!


Volato Fission XE-S by @DoesStuff

Instabin Reason: Wrong Engine Variant Year.

image

Smallest offense but an offense nonetheless. Not forgivable considering hard rules are pretty much set in stone. Decently engineered car otherwise, probably needs a diff. VVL Curve needs adjustment. Techpool allocation could’ve been better to have more budget headroom. Decent looker but looks 5 years too old for 2014. The looks are there, just need modernization.


If you weren’t here, good job. You’ve made it to the prelims.

Just a small announcement. Judgement was finished a long time ago actually, down to figuring out finalists. Just need to figure out the winner. Unfortunately, both hosts are going through a busy patch of lives hence the delay, but we're doing our best.

24 Likes

its over, need to binmaxx

4 Likes

If that’s not the definition of a meme build, I don’t know what is. It might even be the most memey and minmaxed challenge build I’ve seen since the infamous Red Rambler from CSR145:

Full marks to its creator for having the audacity to combine partial carbon/aluminum bodywork on an aluminum semi-spaceframe with a rear-mounted 5v/cyl miniature V10, though. But as the review pointed out, the resulting car missed the mark by a wide margin:

The Pittsburgh and Roamer also committed similarly egregious sins, with the latter’s omission of VVT unjustifiable in this day and age - if it had VVL (which I’m assuming it does unless otherwise stated) but not VVT, it would have been even more jarring:

I’m only bringing this up because, back when I hosted CSR137, I received an entrant whose engine had VVL but not VVT.

As for the Pittsburgh, it may have had an 8-speed automatic, but that one wasn’t of the advanced variety (which explains why it was called a “slushbox”).

At least I’m glad my car is fully rules-compliant, without a hint of minmaxing anywhere.

Love you LOL

good luck to everyone else though

Summary

Yeaaaa don’t worry the Fission won’t be like that for long, I’ll figure something out for the future. I usually rework my cars a little post-submission and end up with something that is much better

2 Likes

Due to the low power rating and higher fuel efficiency required, I saw no need for forged internals, it just would have been a waste of money, and I couldn’t put too much more power in it anyway because of the power/weight limit. Yeah, in hindsight I probably should have gone for an I4 or V6, but I just had way too much fun building it. As for the power curve, I wanted it somewhat flat at peak power, mainly for consistent performance at high RPMs without too much turbo lag. Admittedly, the torque is terrible, but can a GT86 fit three people in it comfortably? Also, another error, the 1st gen GT86 does 0-100 in 7.1 seconds and consumes fuel at a rate of 10.5l/100km average, which makes the Mako not only faster, but cheaper to run as well.

I’m assuming you googled the GT86 0-100 time and took whatever the first result was. There’s an 86 base model and then there’s the GT86. I specifically remember my dad’s GT86 getting a 6.1s on the draggy and if you look up, the GT86 officially should be 6.4s.

The issue with assuming your car is sensibly engineered and is cheaper to run than a car that’s made by Toyota with 6 less cylinders is the fact that your car wouldn’t exist in the real world by any means. Realism is still a factor in these competitions unless specifically said otherwise by the host. Are you aware of the labor required to do the basic maintenance and spark plug changes on a V10? There’s plenty of other issues with the car, for example a rear-engined rear wheel drive car wouldn’t really seat 3 people comfortably because it’d cook the shit out of whoever’s sitting in the rear seats. Numbers aren’t everything.

If you still have questions or are doubtful, by all means send me a dm and I’ll try to engineer a reasonable version of your car at my free time to show where things went wrong

3 Likes

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

:thinking:


:smirk:
tucker 48

:smirk:
tatra 603

:smirk:
tatra t77

:smirk:
chevrolet corvair

:face_with_monocle:

2 Likes

Uh yeah, those are all long sedans with cabins signifiantly forward of the rear axle and long stretches of almost unsloped roof.

The car in question is a sports coupe with what seems like a pretty modest wheelbase. It’s very obviously not the same. Now stop snarking it up at the host.

8 Likes

To be fair…



@JustARandomCrackhead there were plenty of other reasons to bin your car.

No problem. Thanks for the feedback, by the way. No hard feelings at all.

1 Like

I agree. In hindsight, the twin-turbo V10 was probably not the best choice of engine. Should have gone for a V6.

Just to make something clear: flights of fancy when designing a car, even a challenge car, are totally cool - but usually it’s best to take it a little at a time. Make sure that it doesn’t hinder the car in actually doing its job, and make sure that the finished product doesn’t look like it’d only exist if hell froze over.

4 Likes
Rd1, Initial Binning


QFC38, Prelims pt1

Initial binning round. If you’ve made it here and then get knocked off, means your car was good enough to not be yeeted immediately, but it just wasn’t a good enough proposition for the host(s).


Following how Texaslav did it in his round.

17 Entries. 4 Entries will be sent to the bin from here. Those 4 will receive a semi-detailed reasoning for why they got bonked, others will receive a few lines. Time is short.


Rhania Raider Strzelecki by @happyfireballman

Let’s talk about this rather massive elephant in the room.

I see the trollcruiser and I appreciate the entry.

HOWEVER!

The recipe to a well done meme that actually manages to plow through real entries and reach the finals has to lie in:

  • Design
  • Getting the stats that were asked for, while committing to the meme
  • Good price proposition

1 and 3 were a glorious failure, considering it does not look era correct or well detailed (even by QFC standards), and it costs 27500 automation pesos. Yes a Land Cruiser 70 exists but

A 2014 LC70 actually has :sparkles: details :sparkles: and tries to be period correct with how the fixtures are designed, rounded and modern.

You did get most of the stats right though, bar from sports and service costs. With $1850 of service costs annually, this is the most expensive car to run combined with the fuel economy and it’s not even close to the 2nd most expensive car to run.

Also, a fuckoff big truck like this would NEVER have a 2/2 seat setup unless it was some super expensive high spec product. Also most trucks past 90s should not have solid axles all around. Many of them started using Wishbone fronts since the 80s.

Good effort, you get a :b:/10

As in for :b:in.


Arima Cavsage by @Koviico

As an Audi connoisseur, I hate to see this go, but it has to go.

The stats are decent at first look. It does drivability right, it does comfort right, it does sport right. Very healthy stats balance. Until we looked at the drivability of other entries. This is off by a whole 15-20 points in average. What went wrong, Considering it pretty faithfully recreates a lot of Audi’s recipes for building a car, and they have some of the best drivability because of their Quattro system?

What the fuck?

Oh…

image

Fucking donk 21 inchers as standard that’s why. A B8 A4 came with 16-18 inches at most. You have quite monumentally fucked your chances of making it to the semis SOLELY from the handling graph shenanigans alone.

Engine is pretty decent, doesn’t need the billet crank really. Good HP/Torque curve.

I can see you shying away from some fancy suspensions due to low reliability I reckon. Here’s a tip for that, pump trim body quality.

This is probably not fine. Last time I worked on an S4 from 1999, that thing had vented discs all around. I would at least expect vented at the front.

I won’t knock it for having a 6 speed manual, because I myself am in the market for a B7/B8 generation A4/A5 with the 3.0 TDi and a manual.

Design is pretty well done, very bold and understated look. We both loved it and were down to letting it pass until we saw some of the interesting engineering choices up there. This is the only entry that is very well designed and is leaving us at the bin pile.

Anyway, decent entry, needs some work to make it a proper contender.


Clari Gén’Eta Frolage 2014 by @Vento

French cars were a bit ugly in the 00s, but they started looking pretty good by the 10s. This is not one of them.

Not to knock you for it of course, you’re a far better engineer than a designer. And so am I personally, at least for modern cars. Which is why I hide behind a collab where the other person does the brunt of the design and I add some ideas here and there or some niche design features. I suggest you do the same until you’re good enough to design a good car on your own. Remember, stealing designs and adding your own twists to it goes a long way. But don’t OUTRIGHT STEAL either.

I mean what the fuck lmao.

On to engineering. Why does it have an all steel configuration? Especially the panels are entirely untreated steel. In 2014, this is almost impossible. The environmental resistance is by far the worst in class because of this. This’d rust in 2 business days in Melbourne’s bipolar-ass weather.

Double Wishbone all around, LONGITUDINAL AWD hatchback. This just feels so wrong in so many ways. It wouldn’t have if it was done right, but if it was done right it wouldn’t be here.

Slushmatic transmission, 6 speeds too in 2014. I see what you’re doing her with the budget proposition and everything, but there’s a limit for how low you should go. This ain’t it.

Stats-wise, or at least most of the stats-wise, you have a pretty strong entry.

However realism, coherence and design takes a massive nosedive. Sorry, better luck next time.


Centara Kuiper by @Edsel

The paint is something else. Loading this in my showroom preset gave me a flashbang worse than CS:GO. I am dumbfounded by the specific color setting here but you do you.

This is another car that gets really good stats, but upon closer inspection, the engineering gets really interesting.

This costs $26000, higher end of the budget spectrum. For 26,000 automation pesos I get:

  • All cast crank/rods/pistons
  • A VVL that might as well not be there from how it’s functioning
  • Single throttle MPEFI
  • No Precat
  • No differential
  • Cooling flaps for some reason. IDK why it needs cooling flaps when it takes 8 seconds to 100 km/h, and the brakes could’ve used more pistons than the flaps.
  • Weird usage of quality. +4 in aero, +2 in brakes, +3 in traction aids, +5 in safety. Points that you could’ve used in places where it actually matters.
  • The most car.jpg looking automobile I’ve ever seen (you know it’s bad when you out-Abg the Abg).

Yeah no sorry, we couldn’t let this one pass. Initial stats looked pretty strong, but other entries were simply too coherently engineered and better designed.


That’s all the rd1 bins out.

We will be interrupting this pt1 right here for the time being as the angrycock is a dum-dum and forgot Today’s Saturday, and therefore public transport times are fucked. Unless I wanna be late at work, I gotta get off my PC right the fuck now. I will get back to this after the shift. But rest assured pt2 won’t be delayed a whole week. We expect to get done with QFC38 by this week.

I’ll be coked up with caffeine by the time I return so expect some spiciness.

16 Likes

welp, better luck next time. need to step up ky engineering as always xd

1 Like

I suspect the chart is referring to excessive oversteer - something that can be avoided by increasing toe-in angle (in 4.3 only) and widening the rear tires relative to the fronts (although the latter will increase service costs if overdone).

So I just did not know that the emissions button existed, I always fail these challenges for the stupidest reasons

4 Likes

Then again, emissions calibration (which is only possible if a catalytic converter is fitted) wasn’t possible until 4.3, so it’s understandable that most players won’t notice it for some time. I was aware of its presence as soon as I saw it, though.