Sorry for the garbage ad:
1975 ARMOR SUNBURST GT
DOHC 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual, sweet stripe package… it’s all you need for picking up chicks at the disco!
6 Likes
Entries have closed, but for those who have already sent in their .car files, I will give you an additional 24 hours to post an ad on this thread (unless you have done so already). The people who have submitted .car files without an accompanying ad so far are:
I also received a full submission from @GassTiresandOil. Expect full results and reviews within the next 48 hours.
Turból S-II 2500S
Turból’s S series was introduced in 1968, a fastback 2+2 sports car aimed at both American and European markets. Aggressive, long and low coke-bottle styling housed unibody construction and fully independent suspension. Engine options all came from the European side of Turbol operations, a selection of twin-cam I4s and SOHC V8s, all sitting between the front McPherson struts.
1972 saw the S Series’s first major update, now referred to as the S-II. Following in the footsteps of a similarly-sized Japanese sports car that took the US market by storm in late 1969, the '72 update brought a host of changes to cut costs and better fight the low-priced Japanese machine. Lower trims would now feature a 4 speed manual, 4 lug hubs, and rear drum brakes. Rear seats became an optional extra. To reduce production costs, body options were rationalized to just one, the 3 door liftback.
The biggest reduction in cost, however, would appear in the engine bay. The new 4 cylinder powerplant from the new NA market subcompact, the Caplan Squid, replaced the imported twincam I4s, giving the base models a cheaper, higher displacement base engine that also had an easier time with upcoming emissions regulations. As the engine bay was already designed for an OHC V8, the wide all-alu OHV Boxer 4 fit, albeit snugly.
The 2500S would be the highest 4 cylinder spec. This 1975 model produced 114 hp from the 2.5 liter boxer despite emissions equipment. In addition to additional power, the 2500S also included the 5 speed transmission, 5 lug hubs, and 4 wheel discs of the V8 models, providing buyers with the highest performance before the sizeable jump up in price to imported V8 cars.
27 Likes
1975 Ventus Kingsman Coupe 1600SE
North American import edition
Have you ever dreamed of tackling a Corvette, but have the budget for a Chevette? Maybe you want to take on a Porsche, but your wallet steers you to a Beetle? Fret not; the Kingsman is here for you.
P.S. - first forum post! Hopefully this doesn’t come out looking super janky
5 Likes
Im really quite intrigued to see what the results will be. We have quite the diverse range of designs, Engines and engineering Philosophy. Looking at the rest of the pack, i may have over-engineered mine by too much
QFC41 Reviews and Results: Part 1
And speaking of results, here they are, according to Highway & Raceway:
@VanZandt_Breda - Van Zandt Cruzero: “It looks like an Alfa, but doesn’t drive like one. Its 4-speed advanced automatic may be a bit too far ahead of its time, and saps sportiness, while the suspension needs a softer rear, a harder front, and more toe-in at both axles. Finally, poor engine reliability and drum brakes all around (on a $15k car?!) condemn it to also-ran status. In short, it’s more of a grand tourer than a sports car, and therefore not what we’re looking for here.” (not shortlisted)
@Ananas - Oran S1600: “This little red wedge is a bit on the small side, but its punchy engine makes it one of the sportier offerings here. The newfangled driver’s side airbag is overkill in a car of this type, though, and may explain its low perceived reliability. Also, I would have preferred a longer rear overhang for better proportions. Overall, this is a far better proposition than the Cruzero, even if it costs more to service, and the corrosion-resistant steel chassis seems like overkill.” (shortlisted)
@DrPepper2002 - Blackthorn Avenger Mk3 270-TT - “You’d expect something like this, with enough power to rival a genuine supercar, to just blow the opposition away, but its twin-turbo quad-cam 32v V8 is too complicated and unreliable for most buyers, and has very poor throttle response to boot. Moreover, the car itself is almost too large and unwieldy for its class. In short, this is the kind of car we’d expect to see a lot more often on the roads 15 to 20 or so years from now, but not today.” (not shortlisted)
@passengerpigeon - VME Sparrow 220ST Sportline: “Aside from its unusual color scheme, this one looks, feels, sounds, and goes decent enough. However, it could use some toe-in angle at both ends (0.1 degrees each), to avoid being excessively unruly when you don’t want it to be. Also, its all-iron 16v I4, as powerful as this one is, seems too min-maxed in our opinion - due to having a pair of single-barrel economy carbs (bigger standard units, or even mechanical injection, would have made more sense). Its saving grace is its low $10.5k starting price, but we’d rather spend more on something that’s better value for money in practice.” (not shortlisted)
@HermannMatern - EMW Puma 1600 Export - “As a rear-engined car which appears to resemble a front-engined one, the Puma is something of an oddity. Fiberglass panels over a steel spaceframe keep the weight down, which is a good thing considering its relative lack of power. We’ve heard owners finding out that it’s very well-built, but the styling seems a bit too basic for our tastes. Still, if you’re content with a sub-70 horsepower engine, look no further. We’d rather spend our cash on something with more power and torque, though.” (not shortlisted)
@AndiD - Mayster Triumf S3 2.0 Coupe - “Looking like an Eastern Bloc copy of a Datsun Roadster from the past decade, the Triumf is a surprisingly neat little package. It looks cute at first glance, but don’t let that fool you; it’s as quick and agile as it is docile and reliable. The only negatives are poor fuel economy and safety, but as a weekend toy, it’s otherwise hard to fault. Those cute looks are a little too basic for our liking, though; its front fascia reminds us of a hastily-drawn cartoon dog. If only it looked better, then it wouldn’t seem so toylike. A sports car like this should look the part from every angle. Sadly, the Triumf does not - not by a long shot. That said, a few people want to put up with the looks, but will you be one of them?” (shortlisted, but just barely)
@IncredibleHondaFit - Acclima Spira 180 - “A tidy handler, and a well-built one to boot. However, at just under $12k, we feel that they could’ve done even more to make it worth our time and money. It may look fast, but not everyone is willing to be content with an 85-bhp straight-four. Also, if you are going to fit a premium interior and sound system to this thing, why not soften the springs and dampers a tiny bit for better ride quality? Finally, not having any rust protection on the chassis will cause headaches for potential owners down the line. Overall, a cheap choice, just not as much bang for buck as we hoped.” (not shortlisted)
@Happyhungryhippo - CN Tempesta Serie II TS Export - “Another offering that doesn’t look too bad at first glance, but loses its luster as you delve deeper. Its lusty 16v I4 provides ample power for something as light as this, but the unassisted recirculating-ball steering is a major buzzkill. A rack-and-pinion setup would be more appropriate here. Also, we would’ve preferred longer gearing and softer suspension, to better complement the premium interior and 8-track tape player. This is a case of a paper tiger in the corners turning into a real one on the straights - we’d rather have a more consistent package than this, though.” (not shortlisted)
@Danicoptero - Tarske CF408 Coupe - “Looking like a shrunken front-engined exotic with its alloy body, staggered tires, and fuel-injected flat-four, the CF408 has proven to be a real giant-killer on the road and at the track. Owner and press reviews seem to suggest that this car could be the pick of the bunch - for now. Much of this is due to Tarske having done (nearly) everything right and hardly anything badly when they developed this thing, although a little bit of toe angle front and rear would have made it slightly more planted in the bends. Nevertheless, it’s a true budget sports car standout, and a sure-fire favorite among us.” (shortlisted)
@lotto77 - Planar PG16 Genoace 2000 - “Small, light, and a definite looker, the Genoace looks rally-ready from the get-go, but needs more toe-in for a more stable ride when cornering, and despite its rock-solid reliability, isn’t quite as exciting when driven hard, thanks to having power steering, in an application that doesn’t need it at all. At least it can make the most of its 87-horsepower mill, but that engine is starting to show its age. That aside, this is an attractive but inconsistent package - a newer engine and unassisted steering would improve its chances considerably.” (not shortlisted)
OOC: I forgot to disqualify this (or give its maker a chance to resubmit) for having an engine variant year of 1974 instead of 1975, but even without it, other problems let it down straight away.
@z2bbgr - Linnea Mystere 2.0: “Linnea is no stranger to upmarket offerings; the Mystere aims to make that premium feel more accessible, and in general, it successfully delivers on its promise, in terms of both exterior styling and standard equipment. It falls short as a compact sports sedan, though, due to persistent understeer stemming from insufficient toe-in. We’d swap the corrosion-resistant steel chassis for a more common galvanized one and spend the leftover cash on better brake and suspension tuning. Even so, its straight-line performance is decent enough, but whether or not anyone would want to buy this just to put it right and unlock its full potential is an open question, for now.” (shortlisted, but only just)
@Sandstorm - '75 Summit Acrobat: This vehicle returned a combined fuel economy figure of 15.8 US mpg, and was therefore not eligible for consideration. However, with 6.1 comfort(?!) and an overpowered all-alloy quad-cam 32v V8 (way too advanced for '75, but far more commonplace by '95, it was never going to make the final cut anyway. Remember the Avenger’s engine being too far ahead of its time? That’s even more true here. (not shortlisted)
@Ch_Flash - Frampton Helios 2200i - “Another pretty face on the outside, but a paper tiger on the inside. Frampton, like Planar, have made a serious mistake by fitting power steering to a car that clearly doesn’t need it, and in fact feels much better to drive without it. This is a huge shame considering how competitive the basic mechanical package is. Also, negative quality on the advanced safety systems may give buyers cause for concern. Ditching the power steering, bumping up the safety quality, and spending the rest on better mechanicals would be helpful; as it is, the Helios fails to shine in a crowded market.” (not shortlisted)
Part 2 coming soon!
9 Likes
Why was the Sparrow’s engine considered minmaxxed?
2 Likes
QFC41 Reviews and Results: Part 2
Below are the remaining reviews from Highway & Raceway on the entrants in the 1975 budget light sports coupe market.
@xsneakyxsimx - Hitsuji Okami 1.6 8v - “The Okami, like the Helios, is a small sports coupe meant for enthusiasts on tight budgets. However, at $9640, it’s a lot cheaper, mainly because it’s a transverse-engined front-driver with a semi-independent torsion beam rear end. Downmarket interior aside, you may well be getting more for your money in the Okami, which would be fine if it had better mechanicals. And therein lies the problem - they could have charged their customers up to $5k more for a better overall performer and gotten away with it. As it is, though, the Okami only makes sense if your budget is too tight for you to trade up to a rear-driver, as most of its competitors are.” (not shortlisted)
@Chaedder - Ishii-Okada GT96 - “This fiberglass-bodied two seater is a bit of an oddity, with its EFI-fed all-aluminum straight-five. The result is a punchy performer that, sadly, fails to hold up under closer scrutiny. That engine uses cheap cast internals, which limit the redline to 5300 rpm - which is exactly on the power peak. Forged internals would have allowed for a redline that’s a useful 500 rpm higher. As it is, it’s too unreliable and weak-hearted to make the final cut. For $15k, I’d happily trade off a tiny amount of sportiness for a more reliable engine.” (not shortlisted)
@mart1n2005 - Courageux Ventoux - “A futuristic French wedge with a cutting-edge 16v I4 behind the cabin, the Ventoux should, in theory, be able to run like the wind, as its name suggests. That it can do in a straight line, but it’s sketchy in the corners due to insufficient toe-in angle and tires that are 20mm too wide at both axles. Also, the proportions seem a bit odd to some, with a glasshouse that seems longer than it actually is, and like many French cars, there’s not much rustproofing on the chassis to be found here. I was expecting a well-formed baguette, but much to our disappointment, Courageux have delivered a somewhat half-baked one - let’s hope they get it right next time. That said, it’s found plenty of takers among the sports coupe set, but they should be wary of its shortcomings.” (shortlisted, after a fashion)
@Geometrys - Horsche Centurion - “It looks like a store-brand knockoff of a 924, but at least it should be good to drive, right? Well, not this time, given that it lacks torque (and power) in the upper rev range. Thankfully, it handles well enough for our tastes, but someone has mistakenly fitted our example with the oversized wheels and tires of a flagship supercar. A 17-inch wheel/tire combo, especially in the sizes shown here (225mm front, 265mm rear) won’t be available, or at least commonplace, until 10-20 years from now due to the limitations of current technology. That alone is enough for us to reject it.” (not shortlisted)
@karhgath - Phenix Helios - “Another delightful French cheese wedge (especially in yellow), not unlike the Ventoux in terms of positioning, but smaller, lighter, and more focused. High idle speeds and a lack of low-end torque (blame those on its DCOE carb setup) make this one for the truly committed - but if you are, it’s totally worth it. We’ve heard tales about it being as much of a giant-killer as the Tarske (if not more so), and they are right, for good reason.” (shortlisted)
@machalel - Vidar Templar VS - “A rare domestic entrant in the budget sports coupe sector, the Templar looks decidedly futuristic, but fails to deliver against our lofty expectations. Substandard interior, chassis, gearbox, and suspension quality are relatively minor concerns when compared to its severe brake fade (a by-product of low brake cooling airflow and overly soft brake pads), limiting our testers’ confidence. At least the 12v V6 engine is appropriately punchy, but it’s being wasted on a ladder frame, which should not have any place on any modern sports car. We’d prefer a better-built alternative instead.” (not shortlisted)
OOC: In real life, the Triumph TR6 was a contemporary example of a two-seat sports car built on a separate (ladder-frame) chassis, but this means of construction had begun to fall out of favor for all cars of this type several years earlier. Also, if I’d been more strict with Federalization guidelines, I would have rejected the Templar for not having the right size, shape, and type of bumpers or headlights. As stated above, however, its liberal use of negative quality killed its chances stone dead straight off the bat.
@Riley - Zephorus Espion: “Having been on sale here for several years, the Espion is a known quantity, with sleek styling that’s guaranteed to turn heads, and a lusty straight-six that, on its own, invites comparisons with anything from the class above. We found it to be a top-tier performer in many categories, but - and this is very important - it could do without power steering (which led some of us to mistakenly assume it was a GT and not an out-and-out sports car), and a bit of extra toe-in angle at either end wouldn’t hurt, either. Also, without an 8-track player (just an AM radio), the Espion is finally showing its age in terms of features. Even so, at $15k, you’re still getting a lot of stuff for your money, but would you really want to compromise instead of opting for a more specialized offering?” (shortlisted, by the slimmest of margins)
@Djadania - AVG K200: “This is a surprise package on paper, given that this is a lightweight two-seater (and not a 2+2 as some of us assumed). That lack of mass, combined with its gutsy engine, makes it one of the top performers of the bunch. In fact, it would be one of the best options overall, if it weren’t for one thing: its looks. The rear end looks OK, but the front reminds me too much of an old-timey toy robot, or even a cartoon frog, and not in a good way. So instead of being all mouth and no trousers, the K200 has the opposite problem: loads of talent and ability squandered on awful styling.” (not shortlisted by the slimmest of margins)
OOC: Who on Earth in their right mind would even want to use ‘Skibidi Toilet’ as a trim or variant name? That’s a meme choice, and if I’d been stricter on meme choices, the K200 would have headed straight for the reject pile. And this is, by far, the ugliest car in the entire field.
@Knugcab - IP Pandora 2000 GTX: “This one looks better than the previous car, and costs quite a lot less, mainly due to its more conservative mechanical package. It could do with more toe-in angle all around, though, but even with this fix, the hard ride could put some of us off. There’s a distinction between being a genuine bargain and simply being cheap. Sadly, the Pandora veers towards the latter, despite its light weight. If IP had engineered a more livable and yet exciting offering, they would have had a winner on their hands; as it is, though, this is a Pandora’s Box we wouldn’t even think of opening.”
@Vento - XF Cupola Premi: “It looks rather homely for a sports car, but it’s not as utterly hideous as the K200. This is one of the standout performers here, with a mechanical package that looks and feels track-ready from the outset. However, none of us can ignore its awkward styling, or its oversized wheels. We’re not sure if 17-inch alloys will ever become commonplace (although some customers believe that they will, but only within 10-20 years from now). Overall, a top-tier track toy, but lacks the looks to make the cut.” (not shortlisted)
OOC: I know @Vento is good at engineering, but not so much at styling. I thought this was the car to show that his skills in the latter had finally improved, but sadly it wasn’t.
@Kevin980 - Artezza Agile GTC6 2.4: “We knew from the outset that this car would live up to its name. We were skeptical of its 24v single-cam V6 and dual eco-carb setup at first, but with 130 horsepower, nobody would want to mess with this at the drag strip. In addition to putting the “fast” in fastback, it also has the handling chops to match, due to sport-tuned suspension and wide staggered tires. Not even the resulting increase in service costs can dissuade us from nominating it as one of our top picks.” (shortlisted)
@donutsnail - Turból S-II 2500S: “What do you get when you stick an overbuilt all-alloy overhead-valve flat-four in the nose of a small sports coupe? Plenty of fun, as it turns out. It’s not quite as capable as the Agile, but it’s far better built, with near bombproof reliability. Some of us fear that it may even be over-engineered for its price, but then again, you never know when (or if) a catastrophic breakdown may occur. Best of all, though, this is much cheaper to buy (if not to service) than the Agile, and you won’t miss out on much if you chose this one instead.” (shortlisted)
OOC: This car had a lot of positive quality points scattered everywhere. In particular, the +9 quality on the fuel system raised some eyebrows, and makes me wonder why MFI with fewer quality points wasn’t chosen in its place. It’s still a good all-around pick nonetheless, but lay off the quality cheese next time.
@GassTiresandOil - Armor Sunburst GT: “Looking rather like a miniature pony car from most angles (especially the front and rear), the Sunburst is a sporty 2-seater that lives up to its promises, and then some. The 16v SOHC I5 produces more than enough power to keep it competitive, although the lack of toe-in angle makes it trickier to drive than it should be. TBI is unusual in this class of car, but less finicky than mechanical injection (or any carburetor setup, for that matter), and we’re expecting it to be more commonplace a few years from now, until more advanced electronic injection systems become available. Best of all, it undercuts the previous car without having any overbuilt components, at the expense of unparalleled reliabilty. If you want the style of a pony car but can’t afford the cost of one, the Sunburst makes a tempting case for itself.” (shortlisted)
OOC: Although built on the tunnel-back version of the Mobula body set, it doesn’t look like one, due to its use of a fixture from the Modular 80s Interior 3D interior fixture set as a rear window. Also, this is one of the few cars to have a set of racing stripes running down the center for almost the full length of the car - which improves its styling score here.
@supersaturn77 - Kingsman Coupe 1600SE: “Many of us likened the Kingsman to the offspring of a Beetle and a 911, hence the tall roofline and more upright windscreen rake when compared to the latter. The low-mounted sealed-beam headlights also give it the look of a duck-billed platypus from the front. Still, thanks to aluminum bodywork, it’s quite light, and more than capable of making the most of its 82-horsepower 12v single-cam straight-four. However, that engine has a power peak 1300 rpm below its redline, between which the power trails off drastically, making it seem gutless after 6000 rpm. Also, the extreme tire stagger (195mm up front and 275mm at the rear) could be a servicing nightmare, especially since those vast rear tires are more appropriate for higher-end stuff than this. Overall, this is an odd duck, but this one is simply not tasty enough to make the cut.” (not shortlisted)
Part 3 coming soon!
10 Likes
Not surprised, made my car inside the original budget and was more or less finished when the budget was raised.
2 Likes
I don’t think the AVG K200 Skibidi-Toilet looked bad at all; it looks like something a real car manufacturer might have made in the mid-70s if they were intentionally trying to be futuristic and based their design language on contemporary predictions of the future, giving it a “dated retro-futurism” vibe nowadays. Many of the other entries just look anachronistic due to resembling real-life 1980s cars.
2 Likes
Yeah, the idea behind mine was that it was a bog standard econobox with a flashy looking body, hence the whole “sheep in wolf’s clothing” bit. Not surprised it’s not done super well.
Gonna be honest, that review on the AVG actually hurt to read since i put so much love and effort into it…
4 Likes
QFC41 Reviews and Results: Part 3
Decision time - what will Denny choose from the remaining cars? It’s time for him to find out!
Of the 27 cars that were featured in Highway & Raceway’s 1975 budget sports coupe test, only ten were shortlisted: the Mayster Triumf S3 2.0 Coupe, Courageux Ventoux, Zephorus Espion,, Linnea Mystere 2.0, Oran S1600, Tarske CF408 Coupe, Phenix Helios, Artezza Agile GTC6 2.4, Turból S-II 2500S, and Armor Sunburst GT. Of these, only the Oran, Tarske, Phenix, Artezza, Turbol and Armor made the final cut. The other four missed out for a variety of reasons: the Mayster lacked the styling, the Ventoux was a bit oversteery, the Mystere was too understeery, and the Zephorus was let down by its unnecessary use of power steering (with which it should never have been offered in the first place) and lack of 8-track player. As for the other six, the Agile tied with the Sunburst for fifth (due to the former being more expensive to service than anticipated, and the latter simply being off the pace by comparison in many key areas), while the S-II barely missed out on the podium due to being a master of none (except reliability) in relative terms when compared to the top three - it lacked the Tarske’s drivability, the Phenix’s sportiness, or the Oran’s economy. Finally, it was time to rank the top three, and the results were as follows:
3rd: Oran S1600 (@Ananas) - On paper, it looked like a winner from the start, but the luxury 8-track player, advanced 80s safety, and corrosion-resistant steel chassis turned out to be overkill, in addition to making it heavier than necessary. That said, it’s still the lightest car in the top 3, but there’s a nagging feeling that it may actually be too small for some drivers. Still, if you want outstanding performance at the expense of general reliability, look no further.
2nd: Phenix Helios (@karhgath) - Unlike its namesake from Frampton, this Helios is definitely not all mouth and no trousers. It’s also the right size for a small mid-engined sports car, if only just, and turned in a great all-around perfomance, to the pleasure of the road testers at Highway & Raceway. However, what held it back in the standings was its inferior drivability - a symptom of high idle speeds combined with a single DCOE carburetor feeding the fuel. This was enough to give the win to the…
1st: Tarske CF408 Coupe (@Danicoptero) - …whose drivability nearly matched the smaller Oran, and although it couldn’t quite beat the little red wedge on sportiness (mainly due to being the largest and heaviest car in the top 3), it was more reliable, with a premium instead of luxury 8-track player (although some of the H&R staff found even this to be overkill, and would happily downgrade to a standard setup), and it was just as visually striking on the outside as the other two cars. Though not the smoothest-riding of the podium finishers, the Tarske had more power and torque than either of the remaining cars - something to be appreciated in a world where both were suddenly in short supply. Ultimately, the Tarske won by virtue of being the best all-around option, especially when compared to its wedge-shaped rivals.
Aftermath
Following his quick look at Highway & Raceway’s budget sports coupe comparison, Denny wasted no time in picking the Tarske as the one he wanted to buy. He headed to the nearest dealership, bought one in the same color as the car featured in the test, and the rest is history.
He took great care of it for the next two decades, through earning his Master’s Degree, earning a high-paying job, moving out, and getting married, before eventually selling it shortly after and starting a family (of four). Finally, some time in 2020, Denny’s two children tracked down their father’s old Tarske, bought it from its third owner, restored it, and presented it to him just in time for his 70th birthday.
Denny had come full circle, knowing that there would still be a few memorable moments between him and the car that made him feel like he was racing at the Long Beach Grand Prix - and winning it. Now 70 years old, he knew that he could not live forever, but being reunited with the Tarske made him happier again, and reminded him of the good old days. A year later, he put it up for sale on Bring-A-Trailer with the intent on bolstering his retirement fund, but after the auction failed to meet reserve, he decided there was little point in selling it, and decided to entrust the car to his children instead as part of the family heirloom, much to their relief. For now, though, they can enjoy it to the fullest, and remind themselves of what life was like when Denny got his first taste of a true sports car - at any price.
Above and below: Denny’s '75 Tarske CF408 Coupe after a lengthy restoration to as-new condition.
Final rankings
1st: @Danicoptero
2nd: @karhgath
3rd: @Ananas
4th: @donutsnail
5th: @GassTiresandOil
6th: @Kevin980
7th: @mart1n2005
8th: @Riley
9th: @z2bbgr
10th: @AndiD
Many thanks to everyone who participated - I hope you had as much fun as I did!
9 Likes
Took me a while to get a win after so many top 3. In the words of a Finnish legend:
I’m passing it to @karhgath, I’ve hosted two challenges not long ago so I want to take a break from hosting.
8 Likes
Grats to the winner and the host for a nice read, quick turnaround and a fun round.
I will take on hosting QFC42, already have an idea lined up, expect the post to be up in the next day or so.
6 Likes
Searching the court of public opinion here, carburetor quality is cheap and I do not agree +9 quality is cheese. Since techpool entered the game, we are expected to use some level of positive quality in most if not all categories.
6 Likes
Devs said:
and
It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume +9 quality for a well-made sports car is not cheese.
6 Likes
With current techpool I feel like it’s reasonable to go up to +10 or so if the area is deemed to be a quality of the car or brand. A far cry from the time before techpool where +4 or +5 was enough to raise an eyebrow. I would agree it’s not cheese, but anymore than +11 would be pushing it for a regular degular car, anywhere.
4 Likes
To me, it depends on techpool. Only quality over techpool is effective quality to me, quality under techpool is essentially production efficiency.
So for standard +5 I agree, in challenges where you have free techpool within limits, +9 e.g. body quality with +10 body techpool (if the latter fits the techpool rules) is still on the production efficiency side…
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s fact to say that lots of carb quality - even significantly above techpool level - is entirely reasonable. Prior to the 1980s, carburetors were the go-to induction system, used both in traditional sports cars and factory tuners such as Dolomite Sprints etc; this was due to a crushing advantage in familiarity, repairability (Hell, this community has a member on the Discord right now who’s replaced their MFI system on an old sports car with a carburetor) and cost. It’s not cheese - it’s the reality of the 1970s automotive market.
4 Likes