QFC48 - Genesis of Eurosport [DONE]

Community Challenges & Competitions
82

I don’t wanna seem too impatient, but yeah, I am impatient, so - any news? :smile:

83

QFC48: MAIN REVIEWS

Format Note: As with QFC37, I am adhering to the short-form review format with a 280-character cap. Non-finalist cars I want to elaborate get an X-Blue section to dispense further thoughts and advice.

I apologize for the delay; spreadsheet decided to play rough with me this week.

This Dalluhan dart impresses dynamically, with grippy tires, a full-time AWD system, and a 0-60 time of under 8 seconds thanks to a 4-valve, 150-hp engine. However, for the wallet gut punch it is - with high fuel and service costs and a AM$13,000 sticker - it’s got no brand.

XB: This entry digs deep into techpool for its AWD system, which pretty much effortlessly lets it top the drivability scoreboard. However, missing out on that much opportunities to get quality - and thus, to increase prestige - costs it dearly. The engine, too, is a miss as far as this round is concerned: with the performance manifold, 2-bbl carburetor and hot cam, this lump single-handedly nukes cost of ownership. Expensive to feed, expensive to fix.

Verdict: Eliminated

Madness has a home, and it’s our resident Bird’s head. 200 atmospheric horsepower are achieved by surgically removing all pretense of reliability and much of the drivability. It idles at 1500. It also leaves your wallet… At zero.

XB: Spoiler alert: most of the superfast cars in this comp had trouble competing on liveability. The Virgo is the king of such entries, though, failing to clear my 90th-percentile thresholds on cost, drivability, cost of ownership, AND reliability. That’s impressive in its own way.

Verdict: Eliminated

The sportiest-handling car on the market but not the best-handling. Very fast courtesy of a high-revving V6, and has a neat shooting brake. Like all the other FAST cars, this is totally unlivable: the fuel consumption is the highest on the market, while service is 2nd-worst.

Verdict: Eliminated

The competition’s only Longi FWD car. A decent performer for a good price - and seemingly hewn from indestructium, earning perfect scores for reliability and safety. It’s otherwise unremarkable, and has counting against it a 2-seat only configuration and an uninspired design.

Verdict: Eliminated

A very reasonably-priced, cheap to maintain sportscar with otherwise okay to uninspiring vitals and Jesus Christ does it ever look slapped together. Please look up what cars look like. None of the lines fit and the suspension looks hopelessly jacked up.

Verdict: Eliminated

One of two transverse-front designs here. Is it Drivable? Yes. Roomy? Yes. But it’s missing some things… To list them off, it’s any semblance of presence or prestige, a functioning suspension, or dependability - the latter courtesy of an overstressed turbo 1-liter.

Verdict: Eliminated

With an old stick-axle economy car chassis, the souped-up Sora isn’t quite as quick or as maneuverable as the dedicated supercars. It compensates by being a really good “actual car”: Safe, reliable, cheap to own and still very fun to drive. You can also bring your dog along.

Advances to Finals

The most esoteric thing about the Esoteria is that it has no space in front for an engine - but it got shoved in there anyhow. The wedge is also simply too expensive to buy and own to justify its decent but not outstanding performance. Even as a four-seater with freestyle doors.

XB: On the design of this car, I really enjoy the call-forward to the Saturn/Mazda quad-coupes. That part of the car is executed well - which makes it all the sadder that just up front, it has such proportions that the front engine looks like it’d be in a van-style “doghouse”.

Verdict: Eliminated

One of the more fun executions for a higher-power car in this segment. Turbocharger, mid-engined, looking like a cracked-up Montecarlo. Weaknesses include this round’s absolute worse service costs and a set of vastly oversized (205/235) yet medium-compound tires.

Verdict: Eliminated

A rather pretty and practical four-door, the Zavir boasts perhaps the best-tuned powertrain in this competition. It’s also very merciful in cost of ownership, and among the safest cars in the segment. What sinks it? Poor handling and grip tuning. Get a sport tire.

Verdict: Eliminated

As a city hatchback, the RR-layout Nobile fares well. This supposed hot verson, though, fails completely to deliver on said heat: Not only do its wee tires fail to provide any significant grip, but the amount they do provide is still too much for the tiny engine to use up fully.

Verdict: Eliminated

A very neat and trim-looking convertible sedan with a fire-sale price, small cost of ownership, high safety and a good image. It is also so dog-dead last on the performance front it’s embarrassing, even despite the V6; It needs an actual sports version.

XB: This is that “very improvable car” I’ve identified in so many comps. This car needed just a tiny bit more performance, maybe not literal hard-long-life tires, and then it would have been at least in the ballpark of performance while being able to flaunt its great (convertible-boosted) prestige, practicality, economy and pricing. Just keep this in mind for next time.

Verdict: Eliminated

A full-fat ham sandwich: 14-grand sticker, V6, all-around double wishbone. Fast and comfortable, but mistuned chassis-wise and equipped with massive, low-profile yet mid-compound tires. Build quality and public image are also in the dumps, negating the speed advantage.

Verdict: Eliminated

This convertible brick is handsome, prestigious and cheap to own. It’s also blessed with pretty long legs and is decepitvely slippery for a great top speed. Unfortunately, at that speed, it’s so twitchy it’ll kill you - that is, if you ever have enough free time to get up there.

XB: This is one of those “too realistic” cases. Would a hatchback converted to a 2-seater convertible with a stowed top instead of the rear seat have an upset handling balance leading to poor stability? Maybe it would. But having the worst drivability in the challenge due to terminal oversteer does you no favors here.

Verdict: Eliminated

This 4-seat, 4-wheel-disc, fuel-injected mini-GT… Is just average. Whatever strengths it should have are sapped by bad monetary management, making a near-14 grand car less appealing than many 12 grand ones. Oh, and it bottoms out a bit.

Verdict: Eliminated

And this car is the opposite: An above-average-everywhere, well-designed, quad-cam sports car… That’ll only set you back 11 grand. With reasonable cost to own, and packing every kit of kit that the Solothurn does while making a much sweeter impression.

Verdict: Advances to Finals

The Passera is the cheapest thing in this segment, and is actually pretty fast and fun. It is also very nearly as tame as the all-wheel-drive ADAZ. However, being a tin can and looking every bit like one is not an effective way of becoming segment leader.

XB: This challenge’s Mini expy faces the same problem in the sports car market as would the original Mini: It may as well be on par with some of the more serious cars around in terms of pure pace, but it does top out early, it does have by far the worst safety out of the whole field, and it does possess all the elan and prestige of a pool noodle. This would definitely outsell the rest of the cars here just selling to a commuter audience, though.

Verdict: Eliminated

The segment’s only inline-6 car is a 3-door RWD hatch. While a compelling premium offering and arguably sportier than direct rivals, it can be pretty needy to live with - and to drive. And to boot, it’s just not that pretty, with a shape unbecoming of its long engine.

Verdict: Eliminated

A very pleasingly 1970s convertible; Even the roll bar is sexy in its own way. The Ceres isn’t very fast due to the bulk of a properly rigid drophead conversion, but the chassis is well-honed enough to drive in anger. And it’s affordable enough to be a market sector leader.

Verdict: Advances to Finals

This superlight aluminum MR car has the second-best grip figure on the market, looks twice its price and is downright luxurious for the segment. Its other fundamentals being more than acceptable, it is the best mid-engined offering on the market by far.

XB: But not far enough, given it’s not in the finals. This is another “too much stuff, not enough quality” case, a ubiquitous problem with the MR cars in this challenge - and if there’s ever been a way to lose, it’s by doing poorly in the 3-star price dept. AND the 2-star running costs and prestige depts. all at once.

Verdict: Eliminated

This sports sedan is serious promise, at a seriously low price… with serious issues. The speed is just about gear-limited, economy is abysmal, and the torque curve is detrimentally top-heavy. Hell, it’s even twitchy and jerky to drive; pretty disappointing for a pretty face.

XB: This is one of the most beautiful cars here, but I was sort of hoping for a more competitive engineering suite. When you lose 0.5s to 60 due to a too short redline (because of weak internals), and then run out of revs and gears by 118mph, maybe there’s something to be revised there.

Verdict: Eliminated

This smaller - and smaller-engined - hatchback is generally a treat: Very cheap to own, very reliable, and not half bad to look at. However, it’s just too slow for its britches. How are you going to shell out for a performance manifold yet still only make 65hp from 1500cc?

Verdict: Eliminated

This non-scarlet-painted car is fast for not much money, and offers up a striking two-seater design. Handling is less inspired though, with the Scarletta having twitchy road manners and only “good” grip reserves.

Verdict: Eliminated

With mature and measured engineering, the Clementine pleasantly surprises with great drivability, performance, and even comfort. As great a car as it is, though, it just misses market leadership due to a pretty high price and looks that are only okay for a 2-seater cabrio.

Verdict: Eliminated

They will curse you if you drive something this painfully green! The acid wedge, jokes aside, is fast, sporty, and reliable. On the other hand, a serious road presence is not included - and neither is proper safety. The price is nice, though.

Verdict: Eliminated

A really compelling 2+2 that’s fast - if only in a straight line - cheap, good-looking and reliable. It’s on the very verge of being too folksy to be relevant, though, and the suspension is a bit too peasant-oriented even if the balance is overall there.

XB: This car fought tooth and nail to stay in - even helped me eradicate a bug in my spreadsheet. As stated in the main review body, though, the prestige just isn’t there, eith the car hovering just above the threshold where I’d penalize it for the deficiency.

Verdict: Eliminated

Owing to under 1500 pounds, the quickest and best-cornering car on the market - for a price. Two seats. Mediocre drivability. Not very prestigious - or good-looking. And it’ll kill you if you crash it. So it’s like a European, 4-cylidner AC Cobra… Those didn’t sell, either.

Verdict: Eliminated

This is an interesting one: a 3-door fastback. It’s not fast and the practicality is only somewhat good, but it does have miniscule cost of ownership and continues IP’s streak of making small cars look special. It’s this flair that elevates the IP above other “practical” GTs.

Verdict: Advances to Finals

This Japanese sport coupe oozes cool and gets great performance metrics while wasting nothing - though, sadly, not necessarily wanting for nothing. Uncomfortable and still not very “reputable”, the Samurai is just too pure for this market’s tastes.

XB: I really enjoyed the Cosmo-ish design, if that was intentional. Take note, wide tire people: The donuts on this were 145-section, and this car still got great performance metrics because they were the actual good compact here. Without breaking the bank.

Verdict: Eliminated

FINAL FOUR

@Knugcab IOO
@donutsnail IO
@Tsundere-kun
@Ch_Flash OO

POSITIONS 5-12

  1. @Chaedder OOOOOI.OO
  2. @Kyorg & @vero94773 Io.
  3. @Hshan OOO.OO.OOoO
  4. @iivansmith & @Oreology
  5. @bang6111 OOO.OOoOO
  6. @xsneakyxsimx OOO)…O
  7. @MoteurMourmin O.O.O.
  8. @abg7 OO.O.O.O.O))))))

we should just abolish the finals and let the Final Four duke it out in a steel cage for hosting rights

24 Likes
84

Huh, I was expecting more straight sixes in this comp for some reason. Shame about the looks letting the rest of the car down though.

85

British reliability go brrrr X3

3 Likes
86

Sheesh, not even the top third? Was everyone else’s SVC that low? Or does it just look too much like an automotive Khruschevka?

I’m curious to see this.

87

Then again, it is built on the second-smallest of the Moore body sets, so prestige and safety take an obvious (and sizable) hit.

88

Seventh, not bad. Was the Saetta really brought down mainly by the tyres? I thought sports would be too much, and I didn’t even bother to check, damn :smile:

Also…

…as it always should :grin:

89

Funny way of saying almost era-appropriate tires.
As of my research the Lancia Stratos (980kg - 190hp) had 205/215 tires (some sources claim 205/65R14 all-around)

Similar cars had similar tires. Some sources claim the 1976 - 1979 Lamborghini Silhouette (1250kg - 260hp) had 195/285 tires.

90

Okay, so first off, the tires were oversized for application, not for realism. I called them oversize because they made the car score worse.

As for period-correctness, the vehicles you mentioned are a purpose-built V6 homologation special and a V8 supercar. Even if we accept the premise that your car is in that league/class, that still wouldn’t explain why these tires aren’t sports compound - anything going on a Lambo or a Stratos would have been.

Lastly, if - again - we assume your car was meant to be a Stratos or Silhouette rival, that just reinforces the fact you overshot the brief. Even an NA Esprit is sort of overwrought for this challenge.

2 Likes
91

At least I have good use for the underpowered Tortellini

HiResPhoto4780_1,920-1,080
HiResPhoto4780_1,920-1,0801920×1080 76.2 KB

5 Likes
92

Guess i spent too long making the convertible bit look good and not ready any tuning tips in the game :laughing:

93

I’ve not mentioned the Silhouette as a rival of my car, but to show an example of ridiculously wide tires on a car with a similar power/weight ratio. The Silhouette being a supercar is debatable. Many sources call it a sports car and I’d agree on that.

After more research I am not so sure that the Silhouette actually had 285s in the rear. Since the Lamborghini Miura P400, which was definitely a supercar, had 205’s all-around :sweat_smile:
Even the Miura P400S had 215/225 tires. :face_with_hand_over_mouth:
So I agree, the tires on my car seem to be overkill. :+1:

I am eager to learn and wonder what tire combination would you have applied to my car?

Oh and btw the reasoning behind the medium compounds is because the Drivability, Fuel Economy and SVC were better with them, which in my calculations outweighed the measly profit of 1.4 sportiness (when using 205/235).

94

I believe it with the Silhouette, actually. When Lambo moved the big Countach onto 15-inch wheels for the LP400S spec, they did famously replace the rears there with stupidly wide 345/35R15s - and the Silhouette shares a similar bodykit.

My pick for your car would be a sport-compound 195/65R14 square setup. With the correct (read:aggressive) toe setup, I get +0.9driv, +1.5spt, +1.2cmf, and -1.4mpg with svc unchanged. I claw back an extra -0.3s 0-100 kph and +0.05g low-speed grip, as well as -5m braking in 100-o kph.

4 Likes
95

Looking at it after a while of not having seen it I can’t see why I thought it looked right. I can partially put the ride hight down to thinking too much of a late model MGB but even compared to that it looks high. Away from the major issue of the fixtures refusing to associate with each other or the body was there anything in the mechanicals that stood out as particularly poor?

96

QFC48: FINAL FOUR

4th Place: @Knugcab - IP Warbler 1600e GTX

HiResPhoto732_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto732_2,560-1,4401920×1080 198 KB

The Warbler 1600e GTX is a car for the sophisticated recluse. It’s very pretty, it’s somewhat peppy, and it costs no more to keep on the road than a normal car. You buy it and then you have it, to be appreciated without any onus to actually interact or exert effort on the owner’s part. The fact that it’s the most comfortable vehicle among the final four definitely, definitely helps, as does the hatch with its practicality boost.

HiResPhoto731_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto731_2,560-1,4401920×1080 164 KB

The reason the Warbler remains the junior market leader is because most people who are into sports compacts aren’t easygoing going-on-40 types with nothing to prove. The passionate, connected individuals that actually buy this stuff will be disappointed at this hardtop generating a double-digit power number and an equally double-digit acceleration to 100 kph. There is also the small matter of this car - the least-sporty (courtesy of a steering box) or performance-y, and the least prestigious of the four - also fetching the highest sticker price. As a Eurosportscar, then, this gives up the top spots to better contenders.

3rd Place: @Ch_Flash - Lesovo Ceres 1800 GT

HiResPhoto735_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto735_2,560-1,4401920×1080 183 KB

The Lesovo Ceres is the only convertible that we can call a market leader in 1974 - but given that only 5 of the 30 cars (1 in 6) reviewed to begin with bore the honor, the proportion at the top and elsewhere is relatively consistent. On the design side, the Ceres is painfully… complete, feeling like a unique, fresh and yet eminently believable design - and though partially thanks to the convertible rebalance it handily wins the prestige battle, as well. I could just pinch its metal cheeks. It’s the only two-seater in the finals, but the two occupants are very well-protected by 70s standards. The price is the second-lowers of the final four.

HiResPhoto734_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto734_2,560-1,4401920×1080 265 KB

Where the Ceres lets itself fall apart is, literally, where the rubber meets the road. The wheels are much too large and heavy, with 15-inch steelies being the order of the day - and with similarly-oversized rubber to match. Just going down 2 inches on both components would have saved lots of weight with few downsides - to the tune of 60 pounds. Further in, the struts (a pain in the ass common with the IP) and their uneven-with-the-rear tuning spoil the comfort, which is second-lowest of the four where it could have easily been the highest. And, going past the front suspension and getting to the engine… That thing just can’t propel the car fast enough. With a 0-100 time of 10.3 seconds, it’s the slowest straight-line performer remaining, only edging out the IP overall by virtue of handling. There is a lot that can be forgiven for the sake of a sexy convertible. Unfortunately, with this example, a lot of things had to be forgiven.

The athlete among the remaining entries, the B4 V4 sports coupe from Italy has a frankly astonishing trump card: It’s the cheapest. No shit. AM$11,000 and it’s yours. For that, you get a full-independent suspension with almost gokart-level handling, and an engine with four cams that blows away the other three by actually sitting comfortably above 100 hp, with a whopping… 110. Take note, everybody who decided to go with 160-200. And that’s good for 7.6 seconds as well. This basically matches the powertrain characteristics of a Chevy Cosworth Vega. Compared to the eventual winner, the Oleandro is safer, more comfortable and more prestigious.

HiResPhoto737_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto737_2,560-1,4401920×1080 61.4 KB

So why isn’t the captivating Cascina itself on top? Well, it’s more of a result of the winning car’s unique talents than any of this car’s faults, but the Oleandro does whiff a couple areas. For one, it isn’t as good-looking as the rest, with a kind-of-empty rear and a kind-of-busy front. It’s a bit needy for service, though still under the 1k mark, and it does give up the reliability crown to the winner. Personally, I think this car would have been better off with a bit less stuff and more quality - it’s not as chic to have all the most advanced technology if it’s not yet refined to a mirror shine.

1st Place: @donutsnail - Paige Sora Sport 2000

HiResPhoto738_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto738_2,560-1,4401920×1080 173 KB

Competing in the sports compact market with an econohatch takes balls. Paige did it without even flinching. You know what this car’s edge was? Nuking everything else in the segment from ORBIT in terms of practicality. Nothing comes close. In fact, I investigated and found that if the Paige were offered in a lighter 3-door variant, that would have done better overall because it’d still be beating around 80-90% of the rivals. at hauling stuff. That aside, the Sora gets to 100 kph in 8.3 seconds - which isn’t far off from 3 liter Capri territory - and does so on a tide of Skinner-carb low-end torque. Grip is unexceptional but also more than adequate, and as for cost of living - you could just not repair it at all and it’d still outlive you somehow. It doesn’t hurt the Paige’s case that it’s also the easiest pure-RWD car to drive out of all encountered - or that it’s got bitchin’ hot decals on the side and generally looks like an aroused terrier.

HiResPhoto739_2,560-1,440
HiResPhoto739_2,560-1,4401920×1080 153 KB

No car is without sin, but the Sora’s sins are all sins of utility. That drivability value is partly achieved by humping throttle response into oblivion with balancing mass. The small-ish cam helps, which is why this OHC 2-liter only makes 100 horsepower dead and peters out about a mile before redline. And, like I said, the hind doors make it a bit heavier and more expensive than it actually needs to be…The fact of the matter is, though, the whole point of Eurosport is that the “sport” part is tacked on at the rear. The man who wants some fun in his life will not, generally, buy a 200hp homologation special or kit car. He may buy a pure sportscar or convertible, but likely one where the experience is still a bit compromised to make the car in question better to live with. But what most buy is exactly this. A regular-ass car with an off chance of burnout and a decal across the flank.

FUN STATS

  • Everybody had a monocoque and a manual gearbox.

  • One car had a manual steering box (Recirc. Ball). Two had a Hydraulic R&P. The rest all had a manual rack and pinion.

  • Just three vehicles opted to use a stick rear axle, including the winner and another finalist; the rest opted for IRS, with eleven wishbone rears, 13 trailing-arm rears, and three strut rears.

  • Just seven cars had 4 doors or more.

  • Three cars were MR, four were RR, and the rest were front-engined; three of them FF.

  • An astounding 14 out of 30 cars went with a limited-slip differential. The Lesovo was the only finalist with one - ironic, considering it was the slowest one.

  • With regards to rear brakes, discs of some form showed up on 17 of 30 cars.

  • Eight entries, including one finalist, were fuel-injected - of which one was SPEFI.

  • Two cars ended up using an exhaust reactor; the rest successfully rawdogged emissions.

  • Nine cars have under 100 hp, including 2 finalists. Just 6 cars get over 160 hp - none of them finalists.

  • The mean design score was 5.77/10.

  • 18 cars faced scoring penalties due to flubbing at least one scoring category so massively that a zero would have actually been too generous. This is to be expected - but something of note is that three of the finalists are among the dozen “unpunished” cars.

THE END

17 Likes
97

Considering I went for the Datsun 160J (albeit the rare fuel injection model since budget made room for that) as engineering inspo I am satisfied with the results. IRL the simplified engineering made it fail to succeed the 510 as the sports compact when all the fine engineering that made the 510 so clever went int the too heavy and broughamized 180B.

3 Likes
98

What an entertaining round this one turned out to be! Here’s hoping the next one carries on its lofty standards.

99

So looks, and both approx. and service costs were my main pitfalls. Guess that’s what having to shoehorn a straight six in a hatchback gets you.

100

Sooo basically I could’ve entered a 1600 Veloce, give it sport compound tyres, and it would likely be in the finals, I guess? Nice.
Interesting final reviews, I like how they refer to the rest of the cars.

101

Minor correction: the ADAZ was not RR. Was it the only AWD of any type?