Glad to be on that list - and I’ll host the next round in case I win this one, or if everyone finishing ahead of me is unable to do so.
Round 2: The Wheat from the Chaff
But first, an error correction: the Otori Virgo GR4 by @Rise_Comics is binned, for it has four seats while five were the minimum (although five are modeled).
Otori Virgo GR4
Valerie’s response to greeting the Otori’s face was to give it the exact same look back: a hard forward-leaning frown. Sharper than anything seen since the early 80s, it ruins what might’ve otherwise been an alright upper fascia. The lower one, meanwhile, has some sensible-looking grills but the lights aren’t well integrated. From the side, the proportions are just off. Valerie likes short overhangs but this is just too much; more rear length would’ve improved both practicality, looks, and weight balance.
In 1988, the wheels would’ve been praised as “rad” or even “tubular”, but ten years later they look rather silly, particularly with bright red calipers in odd (default) positions. At the back, the lower valence is well-placed but unfinished, while the taillights are downright sloppy. Valerie scored the looks at 65. Alex liked it a lot more (90) but wasn’t around to ask why.
Engineering isn’t a strong point, either. The suspension is significantly imbalanced, wastes development resources on the most basic hardware selection, and the alignment settings are odd and counterproductive, the result managing to be ok but with a lot left on the table and increased SVC meantime. Brakes exhibit no fade but the fronts are weak.
The engine, a 2.1L flat-4 named Pandora, is an odd box too. On the small side for a 3.0m wheelbase, it has two twin-scroll turbochargers huffing a full 1.2 bars of boost. However, they’re sized and tuned not for outright power - which, at 287hp, is there anyway - but for an extremely linear yet ascending powerband. Valerie pondered what it must be like to drive something with this kind of steadily climbing torque curve. Good stuff! Unfortunately, it appears to have arrived at this result by accident, with a lot of errors on the way: the bottom end can’t quite take the power, there’s some knock, idle is quite high, it’s fairly loud for a turbo motor, and fuel efficiency is low.
Stat-wise, it manages to be mostly acceptable, redeemed by the virtues of its basic chassis choices: full alu paneling on a long-wheelbase stainless steel frame. Sport, comfort, and safety are ok. Reliability is on the low side, as is prestige. Despite the power, it’s the third-slowest entry in 1km, ahead of only the Primus and Axxus.
18th out of 23. Accurate L300SW RKS
by @fabiremi999
[badges are missing, but Automation won’t tell me what mod this is, and won’t download it]
Where the Miller was all Show and no Go, this is the opposite: very strong performance and overall good stats, let down by design, and to a lesser extent cost. Highest top speed (312) and tied for second-lowest 1km time, very competitive cornering and brake grip with zero fade. Very good safety score (63.7). Decent if middling comfort (33.4 corrected), reliability (75.3), and drivability (68.1). Low-ish economy (12.5L/100 or 19.0mpg US) and prestige (56.3). Very high costs - maxed-out upfront price and 6th highest SVC (2279). Engineering is sensible and solid, if unremarkable; a little adjustment to brake balance (a bit less front), suspension tuning (firmer rear), gearing (taller), and cam profile (significantly lower) would’ve improved it further, albeit where it least needs it.
Where improvement would be better placed is design. Alex gave it a 50, tied with the Acrobat and Mara for second-lowest behind the Kite. Valerie was more charitable - 80 - though on further inspection she could understand why her partner turned his nose up at it. Proportions are properly wagon-like but that’s hard to not do with this body. Features are few and far between - no bumper trim, absolutely nothing on the sides apart from generic door handles, mirrors, and front side reflectors. The rear design is good, though the taillights look tacked-on with no regard for hatch seams. The front however wasn’t attractive to her (and probably not him either), and overall, to both of them the design quality doesn’t keep up with the performance. Pity, that.
17. Knightwick K6 25 Turbo-R
by @mart1n2005
And the style/substance pendulum swings the other way again. This beauty by Knightwick is tied with one other for the best-looking entry to Valerie’s eye (95), though Alex was more lukewarm about it (85). She wasn’t crazy about the color, but didn’t take that into account; the only visual flaws by her were two. First, the taillights don’t follow the hatch seam. Second, the lack of a rear side vent window, without which it looks a bit empty and the window can’t roll down more than a few cm.
Apart from that, this is detailed, tasteful, stylish, well-proportioned, and well-executed. The front especially, while not terribly original, is impressive. Could use a badge like the rear, perhaps?
Engineering… not so much. Third-lowest Sportiness (18.3) thanks to a four-speed slushbox, somewhat soft and unbalanced suspension tune, mediocre grip from average-sized medium-compound tires, significant brake fade with the third-worst stopping distance (45.6m), and nose-heavy weight distribution. The turbo 5-pot under the hood makes a healthy 300hp, but between the turbo lag and the transmission, the resulting 1km time is slower than average here. At least it’s comfortable, though not in the top ranks and despite being rather loud. It also incurs the fifth highest service costs, at $2333, offset somewhat by decent reliability, fuel consumption, and upfront cost.
16. R
This mysterious machine, known simply as the “R”, enjoys several honors - some dubious, some genuine. Visually it’s pretty alright by Alex (90), less so by Valerie (80) who notes a generally sound design, good proportioning, but some hiccups as well. To wit, the lack of a rear side window vent not only looks off and reduces window function, but in this case not even Audi-grade contraptioneering would let it open all the way; the window is just too big to fit inside the door. The other blemish is significantly uncentered front wheels, as if there were major body or suspension problems. The latter serves as an apt visual cue to represent the first of the “honors” this car earns: worst reliability of all entries, at 65.4.
Apart from that, the design is attractive and reasonably well-executed. The engineering, less so, but unlike the Knightwick, hits some high notes as well as lows. Foremost among the highs is the honor of having the fastest 1km time by a small margin - 22.31s - courtesy of the second most powerful engine entered, and despite an unexpectedly bovine 1774kg empty weight. The costs of this accomplishment, however, include the highest SVC ($3117), some turbo lag, somewhat high fuel consumption (13.2L/100km or 18.0mpg US) and an overworked, underbuilt, and ultimately not very reliable driveline. Suspension tuning is somewhat unbalanced, the rear springs a bit too soft. Hardly a disaster, though… unlike the brakes, that is, which deserve their own paragraph or three.
In this QFC, the weight distribution slider was free of charge to use, and every single entrant, except some front-drivers, should’ve taken full advantage of it right from the start, before doing any brakes, suspension, or gearing. Among the benefits is improved braking, both in feel (nose-diving) and performance (stopping distance, which in the R’s case is a mediocre 42.2m).
On any car, whatever the weight distribution, the front brakes should be set up to slightly or somewhat overpower front grip, the rears to overpower rear grip by a smaller margin, and both with zero fade. On all but the most rear-heavy cars (think top fuel dragster), front brakes will be bigger and more powerful than rears. Here, we have 330mm rotors and 4-piston calipers up front, and the rears are also 4-pot but only 10mm smaller. The rear brakes have no fade, feel strong, and routine stops are flatter and more comfortable. In sporty driving, there’s also more front grip, improving cornering potential. It feels great to drive …
Until it doesn’t. Brake too hard, and the rear tires break traction while the fronts are still gripping, easily oversteering and leading to loss of control. Meanwhile, the front brakes are both weak - can’t even break traction except in a hard turn - and fade significantly (1.8%), hurting Sportiness among other things. This is in spite of using 60-compound pads, which hurts comfort (SQQUUUEEEEEEE!!!) while driving up purchase and service costs. The front can support up to 375mm rotors, but only 330mm were used - why? In addition to underuse of weight distribution and rotor size, here is also zero brake cooling to make the pads’ job easier, nor increased Quality.
All this saps away at its Sportiness, despite the straight-line performance and amply firm suspension. It ends up at 24.0, after further demerits including mediocre on-throttle response, even worse off-throttle due to a 19.9kg millstone of a flywheel and heavier internals. It’s loud (49.9), and owing to the 90 degree bank angle, not particularly smooth for a 3L six (63.7). How this works with a Luxury-grade interior is an open question, perhaps best answered by observing that 39.3 Comfort (corrected) is in the bottom half of entries, lower than many with Premium or even Sport interiors, and concluding, “It doesn’t.”
15. Primus Merit X280TA Avance
On the tall side, otherwise well proportioned, reasonably well executed, and attractive styling. The front in particular is a good-looking concept, though could use some refining in execution (headlight overlaps, grill blocking foglights). The rear follows a similar pattern, if a bit more anonymous in design. Lacks a side vent window, which further makes it look halfway to a small MPV. The styling is more conservative than most here, not flaunting its performance capabilties…
Which at any rate aren’t much to flaunt. With 220hp fed through a 5-speed automatic and put down by narrow (205mm) medium-compound tires, the Merit’s merits are neither in a straight line nor in a corner. The fourth-worst braking, though thankfully fade-free, the second-slowest 1km, fourth-worst low-speed and third-worst high-speed grip. None of these are outright bad, however, and top speed is surprisingly respectable (262kph), owing to the aerodynamic equipment and setup that perhaps hints at what kind of car it wants to be.
This isn’t a sports car, even by wagon standards; this is a cruiser. Sensible, practical, economical (10.7L/100), reasonably reliable (78.6), easy to drive (81.9 adjusted Drivability, third highest), easy to live with ($1238 SVC is the lowest of all entries, including the bins and the Mara), and comfortable (46.8, fifth highest). Its job is to get up to a good speed but in no particular hurry, and whisk you along a gently curved Autobahn without making a fuss in the immediate or long term. At this mission it performs acceptably, not excellently. The suspension is adequately firm but a bit sloppy, with excessive camber and insufficient toe. The brakes are too front-biased, as is the weight distribution. The engine is responsive and reliable, but loud and a bit rough for the job (47.9 and 67.2, respectively), a situation exacerbated by the somewhat short gearing (about 3400rpm at 130kph) and modest power.
Finally, there comes the surprise that this ostensibly more civilized, more responsible, more mature family wagon has the lowest safety score - 53.6 - of any entry. This is despite +5 quality on a steel monocoque chassis, and advanced 90s safety. How can this be? A glance at the detailed stat is unenlightening:
…and enlightenment will need further analysis that I don’t have time for at the moment. I believe @AMuteCrypt has some wisdom to share on this subject. For now, let this stand as a cautionary point to not take the in-game Safety stat too seriously. To be continued…
5 Likes
The Indicator body sets are lighter than other similarly sized bodies, and hence tend to have inferior safety by comparison.
That’s a symptom of the body set used - it dates back to the Kee days and hasn’t been replaced or reworked for UE4.
Oh, not again this one, please. This is a QFC. A QFC is meant to be beginner-friendly. You can be that picky in a CSR, not in a QFC.
Yes, you do have a point that a real car would need an additional pillar but I guess 80 percent or even more of the players don´t care about that detail. Neither did I, although I started in the past days to add that feature to new cars or those that will be used for a challenge, if the lack is really obvious. But that´s because I am an old perfectionist who doesn´t want to be called out for small goofs and fixes them.
yes, the car´s character was well reflected, I can´t complain there. It emphasized more on wagon than sport, without being too dull.
Yeah, the first was impossible to avoid with a shape that complex and composed out of multiple fixtures, the second is a clear sign that it´s an older build from me, I could have fixed that easily, and unlike the pillar, this could also be expected for a QFC. Criticism taken and considered appropriate.
Finally, there comes the surprise that this ostensibly more civilized, more responsible, more mature family wagon has the lowest safety score
[/quote]
I am actually also very curious about that thing. I have no clue why and would really be interessed in an explanation, if anyone has. I can see that the vice-host doesnt have too much time to go into research.
4 Likes
Some casual research suggests that the lack of weight is the reason. There are other Indicator-bodied entries, including the fourth-highest, the Regnum SLX which also uses Advanced 90s safety but AHS body construction. Its detailed stat page:
Otori Virgo GR4:
Volaro:
Knightwick:
Yay, my car excelled at something lol
If my input is at all welcome, QFC is also a place of learning. Whilst I agree that a lack of window guide is to be expected on beginner cars and should not hamper their scores, it’s also not a bad thing to point out as advice. What’s problematic is when it takes up a large chunk of a review that already flouts the intended short-form recipe of this challenge.
Which leads me to my own gripe, @moroza: drip-feed, vice-host, difficult connection situation or not, I don’t see the point in writing feature-length reviews - and speaking personally, and recognizing my teammate, fellow finalists and other participants may not agree to the same, would gladly trade mine for a quicker overall turnaround. Is there anything wrong with the way I did it during QFC37, with 280-character main reviews - with extra bits of advice for designs that needed them?
The Primus review has more words than that, over 350 overall.
You have license, given the couple acting as clients, to double the count to 560 characters; and you could exclude from said count your references to stat numbers. Plenty of tools to make the reviews live up at least somewhat to your standard of detail and holisticism, while making the job much easier on your part and the weightwait lighter on ours.
7 Likes
I still don’t even know what is this side vent window we are talking about, and how a window not fitting inside the door could in any way be a problem in a game where we have limited customization of the actual body
This is what’s being talked about. In most cars - sedan-based ones most of all - window-lets like this are required in order to roll the main part of it down all the way - hell, just to roll it down significantly.
This doesn’t affect the actual performance of an automation cars, but there is something to be said about making sure the exterior of a car “looks like it works”. It’s good exercise.
5 Likes
I see. Took a quick look, doesn’t seem like any of the other cars so far have it and it wasn’t mentioned in any of their reviews. I don’t have anything against the whome window thing per se, I just find it odd
A simulated windowlet (which can be created by placing something as simple as a single bumper bar fixture) is not necessary on two-door cars, though, but that’s not what this round is about.
Also, this is the first wagon/estate-themed QFC since QFC22, which I remember rather fondly.
Sure, but I felt like that little thing seems to be a bit overevaluated.
For everyone a comparison with and without - I added that feature later to some cars, after having submitted this car loooong ago to this challenge that seems to be the longest QFC so far in the recent past. Still, real life can happen and I am positively surprised how calm the community stayed here.
5 Likes
@Texaslav Point taken and heeded. Here we go…
14. Rocket-Saturn Estate
by @toxicnet
Alex mildly liked the looks (80), but Valerie was quite unimpressed (65), especially by the rear, with the sloppiest taillights she’d ever seen. Also, showing seats normally enhances a car’s looks, but not when the rears are nearly jammed into the roof. Engineering is competent if unexceptional, the result having mediocre performance, especially in a straight line, with a 276hp 3.6L NA six pushing a portly 1778kg. Stats, however, are competitive - third-highest prestige, helped by a Luxury-grade CD player; second-highest Safety, thanks to the latest technology and size & weight; fourth-highest Reliability; third-lowest SVC; the highest corrected comfort of legal entries (50.2), beaten only by the binned Axxus and despite a Sport interior (see: comments on the “R”). That interior helps keep Sportiness from being as low as the performance, a not-bad 31.1.
13. Regnum SLX
by @thpethalK
Headlights aren’t 1998, taillights fit awkwardly, otherwise so-so design to Alex (75), good to Valerie (85), with attractive proportions and notable cohesion. Engineering has some highlights but isn’t great overall. Powerful and smooth 3L turbo straight-six makes good use of VVL, but the bottom end is underbuilt for the power. Suspension tuning is very firm and overdamped, resulting in the second-worst comfort. Very aggressive alignment contributes to the second-worst SVC ($2778) but also tied for the strongest overall grip. Handling ends up being merely good, however, thanks to the worst brake fade of legal entries (3.0%). This is due to the puzzling choice of non-vented rotors front and rear, which 4-piston front and 2-piston rear calipers don’t redeem. Neither does the 60 pad compound, further eroding comfort. Heavy AHS chassis and advanced high-quality equipment makes for a fourth-highest 64.0 Safety score. Good Sportiness (40.4), average Prestige (53.5), low Reliability (69.7).
12. Gipfe RS50
Alex gave the design a 75, Valerie 85. Engineering is solid and sensible (though a manual transmission would’ve been more appropriate) and the results reflect that. Turbo 5-valve motor and aggressive alignment yet reasonable $1698 SVC. 320hp yet 9.5L/100km. Modest tire width yet strong cornering and braking grip. Sport interior - and with plaid upholstery! - yet 41.5 corrected Comfort. Very average safety and reliability. Sport is a bit on the low side at 30.3, as is straight-line performance. Handling performance is second best of all entries, first excluding bins. Drivability (77.5 adjusted) is fourth-highest. More exciting looks and transmission might’ve earned it a win here.
11. Skríhra
by @Vento and @crwpitman1
Somehow this is a 3-door wagon and not a hatch. The bold and sorta well-executed styling earns an 85 design score from both. Engineering is a mixed bag, as are the results. The engine is a reliable and amply powerful but surprisingly rough 60-degree V8, with an iron block (still realistic in 1998) and heads (not so much). Its 281hp moves the 1501kg Skrihra competently if unremarkably, while the middling grip and excessive body lean (7.1 degrees) mean handling doesn’t quite keep up. With that all-iron engine, AWD, and no weight distribution engineering, the car is quite nose-heavy, exacerbated by overly front-biased brakes. The 60 pad compound is at least 6 points too aggressive, combining with a low-spec CD player and fairly firm (and sloppy) suspension tune to result in the third-worst comfort (30.6 corrected), while Sportiness is a half-decent 35.6. Prestige is second-lowest of legal entries, Safety fifth-lowest, and fuel consumption third-highest. Better news includes the very best reliability of all entries (88.5) and modest SVC ($1381).
10. Ponto Trieste 3.0 Sport
Alex liked the design, rating it a 90. Valerie was less thrilled (70), noting good execution but a tall, almost MPV-like profile and an unbalanced rear, with lots going on in the upper half and nothing in the lower. Engineering is competent, resulting in competitive Sportiness (39.4), Comfort (44.2 corrected), and Prestige (58.7), decent Safety (60.0) and Reliability (75.7). Performance is average but expensive, with the third-worst SVC ($2367), largely the fault of the turbo on the all-alloy 3.0 DOHC-4 straight six. The transmission is a welcome 6-speed manual with a rear-biased helical all-wheel-drivetrain, but the gearing is odd, with short gaps in lower gears and much larger ones in the upper half.
9. Katami Visage G4X
by @bang6111
(Grill textures didn’t import correctly, and were replaced with generics)
Pleasant but slightly outdated styling, earning an 85 from both. Not much noteworthy about the engineering apart from an under-built driveline and significant boost lag (idle at 1000, redline 7000, full boost at 3400). Average Sportiness (34.1), Prestige (54.1), Safety (61.1), Reliability (76.3), SVC ($1800), consumption (11.4), Comfort (39.2 corrected), Drivability (61.7), straight-line performance, and high Averageness overall, apparently. The only standout is a positive one: despite a little brake fade (0.2%), handling performance is the third-best here, thanks to being tied for highest overall grip due to aggressive alignment settings.
8. Asgard 400 R5
Alex found the looks of the Asgard somewhat appealing (80), while Valerie was more enthused (85), praising the clean, modern styling overall and especially at the front, while the rear was a good start but could use more polish of the taillight fitment. Functionally, this was one of the spicier entries, its 42.1 Sportiness ranking second thanks to a responsive 309hp 2.3 5-pot turbo, a high-quality 6-speed manual all-wheel-drivetrain, high-quality Sport interior, and a reasonably firm and well-tuned active suspension. Comfort, on the other hand, wasn’t bad per se - 31.8 corrected - but fourth lowest. SVC and consumption were reasonably good ($1776 and 9.1L), Reliability a bit above average (76.8), Safety ok (60.4), and the upfront price attractively under budget ($34700).
7. Ayatsuji Myosotis GSR
Polar opposite of the Katami, the Ayatsuji is anything but conventional and middle-of-the-road, starting with the looks. The bold colors and styling are unmistakable for anything else, and both Alex and Valerie liked it - 85 and 90 visual score. Valerie noted the swoopy, well-integrated taillights, distinctive center-mounted triple exhaust, and the overall curviness as highlights, countered by odd proportions - a long bulbous nose with a short and squished rear. Still, quite a Show, and with the Go to match; sporting the most powerful engine of any entrant - a 3.2L 5-valve twin-turbo straight-six making a fat lump of midrange power up to 426hp - it’s about tied for first place in a straight line. Handling, however, is rather lackluster, with so-so cornering and mediocre braking grip. Suspension tuning was done with admirable precision for spring and damper rates, but standard springs and a rather conservative alignment setting make the modest 225mm tires give modest results, though keeping the rather high SVC ($2343) from being even worse. Comfort is a low-ish 35.7 corrected, while Sport is a competitive 39.1. Prestige is an average 55.8, Safety rather low at 57.3.
7 Likes
Why are my headlight lenses completely transparent? They show up textured and diffused on my computer…
Potato graphics settings. The comment about them looking out of era is due to the illuminated rectangular bar, though, not the lens. Whether interpreted as HID or LED, neither was around in 1998 looking like this. The design looks good and is cohesive with the rear, just too modern-looking for the year.
2 Likes
Regarding the Primus - if you’d like me to do some more detailed looking over the whole field (or if you’d like to!) I can shoot you a CSVExporter plugin which will give the entire detailed safety pane for the whole field in spreadsheet form.
Or the entirety of detailed stats, lol
GAlexZilla previously indicated particular desire to review the finalists, but communications are as you’ve seen. What would you prefer?
- Announce final rankings per existing scores (his+hers) now, let GAlexZilla review them later.
- Review finalists briefly, rank according to his+her scoring.
- Review finalists more thoroughly, rank according to his+her scoring.
- Review finalists more thoroughly, rank according to only her scoring.
- Wait.
0
voters
Very well…
6th. Homura ST3400VSX by @donutsnail
5th. Nisemono Sukairain TS-R by @shibusu and @xsneakyxsimx
4th. VOLARO Verlyn Tourer VSN “Arizaga Spirit” by @DoesStuff
3rd. Oran Baluba SE by @Ananas
2nd. AMS Acolyte 420SW by @abg7
1st. Somervell SBP Scimitar Wagon by @Texaslav and @Kyorg
10 Likes
We’ll take it. Expect the new QFC soon.
8 Likes
I will not be co-hosting, but I’m excited to see what you do with QFC48 