QFC49 - The New Family Car

donutsnail · 5 October 2024 04:35

QFC49 - A New Shape of Family Car

The XJ Jeep Cherokee was an incredibly influential car on the future of the automobile. When introduced in 1984, it brought into existence a completely new market segment, one that is now ubiquitous to nearly every global market: the compact crossover.

By modern standards, the XJ does not appear to be a crossover. It is unibody, but it rides on solid axles front and rear, with rear leaf springs, with real 4WD and low range. However, in concept, this is where the crossover begins: the very first affordable SUV designed to be a family car. At a time when SUVs were almost exclusively just modified trucks or military vehicles, often crude and with just 2 doors, the XJ Cherokee proved a popular alternative for families to the more commonplace wagon, thanks to having been designed to work as one.

The impact was immediate; this brand new market segment could not be ignored. Manufacturers scrambled to put together competitors. Mitsubishi and Isuzu happened upon similar products just before the XJ, introducing 5 door wagons of their Montero and Trooper, more as budget Land Cruisers than family wagons, but they would quickly face off against the XJ in showrooms. Other manufacturers worked feverishly to produce proper competitors, when suddenly, in 1990, it seemed all of the other manufacturers caught up. The market exploded with a gamut of 5 door family SUVs: the Nissan Pathfinder was made into a 5 door; the 2nd generation Toyota 4Runner was released available as a 5 door; the Chevy S10 Blazer and GMC S15 Jimmy now could be had as a 5 door, Ford released the Explorer, and Isuzu unveiled its 2nd 5 door SUV to the market, the more affordable Rodeo. The market segment was suddenly hotly contested.

Can you build something for this burgeoning market, the point in history when the SUV became a family car?

Rules

These rules may seem strict and restrictive compared to many challenges, but I want to be somewhat experimental with this QFC. Given the somewhat narrow window of fitting a very orthodox market segment, can you make something that stands above competition that is mechanically more alike than different?

Trim and Variant year: 1990
Body: 5 door SUV, wagon, or hatchback. Style should be that of an SUV.
Wheelbase: 2.50m-2.85m (98.8" - 112.6")
Seats: minimum 5, +seats count
Drive: 4x4 or AWD
Transmission: No Continuous
Fuel: Regular Unleaded
Emissions: WES 7
Tire type: Radial Offroad, Radial All Terrain, or Radial Utility
Tire width: Minimum 205
Tire diameter: Minimum 665 (26.2"), Maximum 785 (31")
Front and rear tire sizes must match.
Wheel diameter: 14", 15", or 16"
Suspension Toe: May not exceed -.15 or +.15. Rear Toe if rear solid axle must be 0.
Driving Aids: Some form of power steering is mandatory
Maximum 0-100 time: 16 seconds
Techpool: $35M, no negative values
Maximum Price: $25,000

ATS: Adjustment to wheel diameter is not allowed. Adjustment of tire width or diameter is not allowed.

ATS soft rule: Body Z and ride height adjustments may not net raise or drop the vehicle more than 4 units. IE; if you drop the body Z by 6, you need to raise the front and rear ride heights by at least 2. This rule is soft because if you are doing something that involves quite a bit of body transformation, I can be flexible. What I do not want to see is a lowrider or a monster truck shifted back to regular SUV stance. If you are using a lot of ATS, please DM prior to submission with what you are thinking and I can look it over first.

Please name your entries “QFC49 - YourNameHere” for the Model and Engine Family

Price Adjustments

Automation, at least in sandbox, allows you to make some very statistically advantageous choices at little cost. Benchmarked against more typical engineering options of the segment at the time, the following choices will be given price credits or penalties, applied to the vehicle’s price:

Suspension Type:

Rear Solid Axle Coil +$1500
Rear Semi Trailing Arm +$4000
Rear MacPherson Strut +$5500
Rear Double Wishbone +$6000
Rear Multilink +$8000
Rear Pushrod +$7500
Both front and rear are solid axle -$1500

Other Options:

Twin Tube Dampers: -$1000
Manual Transmission: -$500
AWD +$3500
Inline 6 engine +$500
Boxer 6 engine +$500

With the budget available to you, some of these options may not fit well into the budget. I am aware of this. The advantages they bring makes them very strong, and if you want to bring them, you will need to make sacrifices. Consider this, along with the fairly tight tire restrictions, the alternative to the much maligned Realism Bin; the unrealistic choices are allowed, but their advantages should be harder to (ab)use when more cost is involved and price is among the priorities.

Priorities

Drivability

A strong factor making these vehicles family cars was their newfound user-friendliness.

Style

Another strong factor in their popularity is in their rugged image. Interiors will not be accounted.

Reliability

Dependability is important in any family car.

Price

It wasn’t the pricey Range Rover that caused this market to explode. Scraping the bottom of the barrel isn’t necessary, but no one turns up their nose at a better value.

Comfort

These SUVs were more comfortable than their utilitarian forebearers; no small part of their family car appeal.

Offroad

While time would show that this type of buyer would almost never go offroad, it would be a long time before the market was really ready to accept an SUV without offroad capability.

Service Costs

These rugged and simple vehicles should not be too costly to keep on the road.

Performance

Acceleration and cornering performance isn’t a hallmark of this class, but the weakest, base engines were rarely the volume sellers. The people will take a bit more performance if it is available to them.

Prestige

An SUV buyer might be looking for something that’s different from their neighbors’ wagons and minivans in more than just form factor. A bit of showmanship would not go unnoticed.

Safety

These vehicles were not typically very safe, but as family cars, safety features can be a selling point.

Fuel Economy

Not expecting miracles here, but too low here will drive away buyers.

Practicality

While 5 seats are sufficient, if you can fit 6 or 7 without hurting your overall package, why not?

Env Resist

Time would eventually show that rust prevention was not a high priority in this segment, but it would be beneficial to the long-term reputation of your SUV lineup.

Additional Inspirations:

Mitsubishi Montero/Pajero

Isuzu Trooper, Bighorn, etc.

Nissan Pathfinder

Toyota 4Runner/Hilux Surf

Chevrolet S10 Blazer/GMC S15 Jimmy

Ford Explorer

Isuzu Rodeo/MU, Vauxhall/Opel/Holden Frontera, Honda Passport, etc.

I understand this is a fairly limiting ruleset with some fairly heavy handed adjustments. I hope that you will find this an interesting and unique exercise, but if not, it’s QFC and it will be over with soon.

Submissions are open. The deadline is still October 16, 11:59 PM UTC.

xsneakyxsimx · 5 October 2024 05:22

Any reason for the price penalty for an inline 6 engine? I would have thought that many cars that have V8 as higher trim options would include an inline 6 as a base level engine.

donutsnail · 5 October 2024 05:36

To improve parity with the V6. The de rigueur engine lineup for the segment would have been a base I4 and an optional V6, the Cherokee itself being the notable exception with its I6. In Automation, the I6 is cheaper than the V6, but in real applications, V6s are often less expensive to the manufacturer to produce thanks to the packaging flexibility allowing them to amortize the production costs across a lot more vehicles/platforms. Given the I6’s massive smoothness advantage as well, reducing if not eliminating its cost advantage over the V6 feels appropriate.

Texaslav · 5 October 2024 06:07

Give me imperial units on measurements so there is no ambiguity

Knugcab · 5 October 2024 10:28

Will you care about utility brake fade? Because that’s a thing that is generally totally bonkers on a high vehicle with leaf springs, if you don’t want to have a silly maximum payload you have to make the springs soft as sponges, if you have decent spring rates you need brakes that would be unrealistic for the era and car type if you don’t want huge amounts of utility brake fade.

nvisionluminous · 5 October 2024 12:03

I would like to know if it’d be possible to apply faux diesel rules here— many of the cars mentioned in the inspirations (especially the Japanese ones) could be had with 4cyl turbodiesels, after all.

abg7 · 5 October 2024 13:35

Does this mean that having solid front and rear axles will incur a $1.5k AMU rebate (subtracted from the car’s base price), even if the rear solid axle is coil-sprung? I’m sure it does.

In any case, you’re making the right decision in making every rear suspension type other than a leaf-sprung solid rear axle an extra-cost option (whose cost will be added to the car’s base price) for balancing reasons. However, given that a 4x4 drivetrain behaves identically to a RWD one when not engaged, it’s not surprising that it isn’t a no-cost option, whereas an AWD system is.

Also, I’m sure that “standard unleaded” refers to regular (91RON/87AKI) unleaded, and the wheelbase rounding refers to the nearest 0.1m.

Anyway, this is reminiscent of what JOC6C would’ve looked like if it were set in 1990.

vero94773 · 5 October 2024 13:38

not the host, but just my two cents - with how limiting the ruleset already is, particularly for a QFC, i would think faux diesels are better left off the table, makes it easier for everyone.

GassTiresandOil · 5 October 2024 14:57

How I’m reading it is: Rear solid axle coil is +$2500, but then if the front axle is solid too it’s -$1500, for a net increase of +$1000.

Chaedder · 5 October 2024 15:27

Are convertibles allowed?

Happyhungryhippo · 5 October 2024 15:55

Globus Montana

Offroad cars are thirsty, dull, cramped and hard to drive?
This might be the truth to some extent, but Globus provides an all-terrain vehicle that suits daily driving for a price not higher than a midsize sedan.
The new Montana is the swiss knife, but made here in America.

Available are the trims LE, LS, LX and LT, and three engines from four to six cylinders, suiting any budget and driving profile.

Globus. Buy clever, regret never.

Hilbert · 5 October 2024 16:08

I understand all these, these makes sense.

Even these, although I don’t understand why not allow hard long life tires? It’s a family oriented car after all. However…

Why? Why is there a minimum tire diameter? What? Wheel diameter sort of makes sense, although I would ditch it.

This is what my car looks like with 685 tire diameter and 15" rims. It barely fits in the wheelwell. They are cartoonishly large. Why not just leave the tire diameter up to the contestant? I don’t think QFC should have such restrictive rules. The entire challenge is literally just “make me a Jeep Cherokee” right now.

abg7 · 5 October 2024 16:43

I don’t think this refers to the body’s actual wheelbase, but the value shown in the body set and body style choice tabs. For example:

This body set has a 2.85m wheelbase, which, when rounded to the nearest 0.1m, equates to 2.9m (0.1m above the maximum); however, the thumbnail lists a value of 2.8m, so should I trust that instead? In any case, I understand why there is a minimum wheelbase limit, but should the maximum wheelbase limit be increased? If not, I’ll be happy for the latter to remain as it is.

At any rate, in addition to reminding me of JOC6C, this QFC has elements of Road Kings, but set at the very start of the decade immediately before the one that RK took place in.

supersaturn77 · 5 October 2024 17:01

Alright, let me get this straight…
Prepare for some rants.

Oh boy.

That’s such a tiny window. At this point you might as well give a list of approved bodies, it’s so narrow. Maybe open that up a bit.

I beg your pardon? 4WD? This has already been a point of question lately. There is no 4WD in Automation right now. Is this meant to mean 4x4? Is this the “custom” description of AWD with extra cost?

You want a “family oriented” SUV… without family oriented tires? I find that hardly makes sense. Do you want an off-roader that doubles as a family car, or a family car that doubles as an off-roader?

Okay, what the hell is this? Now you’re just copying spec sheet data, aren’t you? Is this a design challenge or a replica one? Why is this even a rule?

Quick edit P.S: Just give us profile regulations or something. People do that. But I find that almost too much for a QFC.

…if you’re going base-spec and can get away with manual steering, does this really matter? Just let people make this decision themselves and judge it accordingly. C’mon. Splitting hairs here.

Why are you even specifying this? How does one even make something take this long 0-60 mph without seriously underpowering a brick with a traditional slushbox or something?

Okay, what…? What the [censored word] is this, dude? You’re upcharging for COILS? By 2.5K?! Who the hell is using multilink here anyway? Why does wishbone cost 6K?! That’s enough to buy half of some entire cars. And that upcharge for AWD? Why are you upcharging for 6-cylinders? And failing to even acknowledgeV6s with it, too? What’s even the goal here??? Again, is this a challenge to MAKE A CAR or are you just telling everyone to make an off-label Cherokee???

You could also just… make the budget tighter…? And ditch these ridiculous surcharges entirely? I think if I were a new player in challenges like I was back with my first QFC, which I tried because of how approachable it was, I’d be much more frustrated to be binned not for “unrealistic choices,” but because some normal enough choices somehow got me binned because my tires were just randomly considered too small, or I decided to have STA in the back and the MASSIVE PRICE JUMP made me go overbudget. Really, what is the point here???

This is meant to be QFC… if your goal is to turn people away quick-fire style, you might be on to something. Otherwise, I’d suggest reevaluating this jumbled and needlessly complex ruleset. Sorry if some of it comes across as harsh, but this all just rubbed me wrong and I needed to say it.

abg7 · 5 October 2024 17:08

You have a point - adding too many restrictions to this QFC has made it too much like a CSR, which is a longer-form challenge with a greater focus on realism, and hence less beginner-friendly by comparison. Removing (or relaxing) some of those restrictions could make this round more in keeping with the original purpose of QFC - a CSR-like challenge with shorter submission periods and generally looser rule sets.

donutsnail · 5 October 2024 17:33

The brief should have imperial units for everything but tire width now

No, that statistic is really strange right now. Utility as a whole, unfortunately, is not in a state where I want to take its score into account.

I’d rather not dive into trying to fidangle a ruleset for rake diesels. It is too easy to accidentally make them completely useless or completely OP.

GassTiresandOil got it right; if both axles are solid but rear axle is coil sprung, it is a net increase of $1000.

Yeah, some of the SUV bodies have a lot of convertible variants, feel free. I won’t be making any adjustments to their stats to compensate though.

Part of the theme of the challenge is that certain parameters are locked in to be close to what was used in this class of vehicle at the time. Everything in the segment was in this range of diameter, width between 215 and 245, with 15" or 16" wheels. The upper bound on diameter is generous and I made no upper bound on width.

It is a QFC and an attempt at a different approach than what is typical for these challenges; with certain aspects limited, it is playing with the other options and the fine tuning that will make the difference here.

The rules now go out to two decimal places for wheelbase limits.

Trying something different, and attempting to tackle some of the innate imbalances this game contains in sandbox. IRL, this entire class of vehicles fit within these rules, and as I said, the point of the challenge is to see how well you can work within those parameters. QFC seems to me like a great place to be experimental because it is fast. If you aren’t a fan, the next one won’t be a long wait.

Hilbert · 5 October 2024 17:38

To be frank, I don’t think it’s working.

moroza · 5 October 2024 17:50

I appreciate the paradigm and I’m not categorically opposed to the restrictions, but some of them seem excessive. I would do away with the wheelbase, power steering, tire type, and tire dimension restrictions altogether. 14" rims should be allowed.

Solid rear axles should not allow any toe or camber.

TP should allow negative values, but I won’t press this issue here.

Coil-sprung solid axle penalty is too steep IMO; $1-1.5k is more reasonable. Monotube dampers also don’t cost anywhere near 1K over twin-tube; more like $200, if that. The AWD penalty is also rather high, especially for 1990 when there was abundant real-world experience with it, and was present on relatively lowly cars (Lada Niva, Subarus, Corolla AllTrac…).

SVC and weight distribution penalties are enough to balance the various 6-cylinders. I would do away with those.

I’m for diesels being options.

I would invite consideration of the relative costs and effects on safety (and the importance assigned to it in scoring) of ladder vs. unibody construction.

abg7 · 5 October 2024 18:04

I’m not sure about requiring 0 toe angle on solid rear axles - although adjusting rear toe angle with a live axle of any description doesn’t have as much of an effect as an independent setup, it still affects the car’s handling characteristics.

moroza · 5 October 2024 18:06

Yes, it has a effect, but it is unrealistic on a non-steering axle. Very minor adjustments can be made on race cars, but this is very hard on bearings and implausible for an OEM to do.