“4WD” is an informal term usually just equating to 4x4; it’s not rigidly defined as “full-time 4x4”. Whoever told you that it did was mistaken.
As far as I know, this paradox was exactly the norm in the segment at the time - and this is the running moral of the challenge. It adapts a hard-to-simulate market, and the reason it’s hard to simulate is because automation is not entirely objective.
This is, again, an Automation objectivity thing. We know pretty much for a fact that with non-3500+ lbs cars in this game, manual ball steering is just way too good. Donut told me in private conversation that he specifically didn’t want to dole out realism penalties and the like in this round - precisely because it is a QFC.
This is a challenge to make a midsize SUV in 1990. The type of vehicle prevalent in the segment was so uniform that even the Cherokee was actually “revolutionary” in what it was. I also think the surcharges are excessive - but I believe the way to fix the problem isn’t necessarily to remove them, it’s to reduce them and make comfort a lower priority.
For what it’s worth, I think all IRS should have the same penalty - since STA basically didn’t exist even in the crossover segment and incentivizing it here would be unnecessary.
Entries haven’t started. I will definitely contribute unless work swamps me… So don’t write it off because you’re salty your swoopy crossover isn’t what the brief asks for.
No it’s not. This is a very restrictive ruleset in general, and even more restrictive when we take into account that it’s a QFC. To me, and I believe I am not alone with my opinion, this feels like we are literally tasked to make 1:1 copy of the Jeep Cherokee XJ.
Look at your profile picture - and check your attitude towards donutsnail.
If you want civility and constructivity, lead with your best foot and suggest rule changes in the spirit of the challenge, as opposed to demanding changes to fundamentally alter the challenge to something you find appealing.
Sharp observation. Those who have been here longer, may know that I’ve had this for the past five years, not really sure what you’re trying to say.
I could say the same to you. You have been nothing but rude towards me, so it’s rather ironic for you to tell me to check my attitude. If I were you, I’d take a long and hard look in the mirror. I don’t recall demanding anything at any point. Nor do I recall altering the challenge by voicing my opinions. I find this ruleset rather strict for a QFC, but you don’t seem to understand that, instead you somehow managed to misinterpret everything I said and then made assumptions based on that. Best of luck to you, I hope you’ll have a better day tomorrow.
You’re being asked to make something that fits in the the class of 5 door SUVs available in 1990. None of the vehicles actually offered in this class at the time would be in breach of any of the rules.
Without wading into this quagmire too much, surely the more restrictive rules are better suited to qfc than csr since it will surely be quicker to make a car with less choices instead of more.
If you dont like the rules don’t enter at the end of the day. This is a refreshing change from the deluge of meme challenges
I present to you Accurate Trooper 4x4 with manual lock moved by a 4 banger producing a measly 140 lb/ft of torque with a cd of 0.36 capable of a 1/4 mile in less then 20 seconds…
5 door Van bodies added
Cost penalty to Solid Coil rear reduced
Minimum wheelbase reduced to 2.50m to allow the 5 door Vitara body
Minimum tire diameter reduced to 665
Wheel Diameter opened up to include 14"
Maximum price increased to $28k.
not a fan of the max price abolishment tbh. i think at the very least having a benchmark to aim for would go a long way. (i am out of touch when it comes to price and i would overshoot)
100% agree.
Nobody is forcing one to take part in the challenge. If you don’t fancy some of the rules suggest some adjustments, but do not fuck the entire thing off with unnecessary rants or silly girly arguments about profile picture, because 1.going “experimental in this QFC” it’s one of the first things written in the rules and 2. we’re clever car enthousiasts and we want to keep the community far from being toxic. Onestly I don’t find this restrictive QFC that wrong at all. It can be helpful instead. There’s plenty of stuff that can be done, so make your own challenge with your own rules, or respect the will of the host and be constructive with the suggestions.
With a 214 Cubic inch I6 Standard this budget SUV offers 14MPG , nearly 200FTLBS of torque, and 153HP. while only costing 11,700MSRP it has features like a wes8 rating, standard cassette player, 4 wheel disk brakes and seating for 5.
Come down to your local Markov dealer for you new TATRA Azteca today! TATRA also known as TETRA in brazil markets some images are of different countries
Track edition coming soon with 299Cu inch V8 and premium interior.
The new tentative opening of submission window will be Sept 7 12:00 AM UTC, so, roughly 7 hours and 10 minutes from now.
Update to the previous change log:
$28,000 budget is too much. Will be returned to $25,000, which is still rather generous.
A price credit to manual transmissions and non-variable power steering options may be added.
ATS rules may be relaxed to increase the range of viable bodies
The addition of van bodies is likely to be removed. MPV bodies at the moment are a bit broken. Meanwhile, 5 door cargo vans are interesting:
5 door cargo van variants of existing SUV bodies seem to be pretty well balanced with their SUV counterparts
5 door cargo van variants of van bodies are extremely strong.
Only 2 cargo van bodies actually would work for this challenge, but I think instead of banning these individual bodies, the easier route to take is to go back to the original rules, which allowed only SUV, Wagon, or hatchback labeled bodies.
The finalized changes will be placed in the original post prior to submission window open.
