Inspired by the company’s TCD entrant, the TCe brings the speed & power to the masses.
With a brand new engine, suspension, body kit & wing, the TCe stands head & shoulders above the rest of the Versus lineup and ensures that enthusiasts will adore this one for years to come.
Specifications:
2.4L Inline 4 / Naturally Aspirated
225hp / 275Nm
Manual Transmission
1322kg
P235/45R17
0-100 in 6.4s
1/4 Mile in 14.7s
A Collab between @iivansmith & @Oreology
ROUND ZERO: THE WORST, THE BEST AND THE BINNED
The Hemitra sported unacceptably low drivability, reliability, practicality and service cost values - all largely courtesy of an underbuilt and overboosted engine under the hood, but also unassisted steering and lack of any traction aids. But the reason it’s in the instabin pile is a blatant cost overrun: $25,700 after the $2,000 AWD upcharge is levied.
This one is much more of a tragic loss. While the Celeris was not without sin, what with the four seats and the high price and the subpar reliability, it was also flat out the best-looking car in this challenge. I rated it a perfect 10, and it would have gone on to place well inside the top half of entries. It’s a shame, then, that an incorrect engine trim year takes it out of contention.
Wew, I almost left this one out! This deeply flawed build is abjectly unsporty, difficult to drive, and gas-thirsty. That combination is achieved by trying to run stout 3.2 V6 power to desperately thin medium-compound wheels in a tortured, oversteering suspension configuration. So it’s basically icing on the cake that the car also has a too-long wheelbase by 0.05m compared to challenge rules.
Rest of competition results coming very soon
Outch, it’s hard to be thrown away for rule breaking.
I should have been more careful (I forgot about the AWD penalty 
)
Good luck everyone!
REVIEWS: A FLARE FOR THE NOUGHTIES
Format Note: As with QFC37 and 48, 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.
A very capable two-door, but also expensive to buy and to run. The lack of a special visual or reputational “oomph” keeps it down in the midfield - and the aforementioned two doors don’t help none.
Verdict: Eliminated
This small compact is equipped with a state-of-the-art electric diff - and a state-of-the-fart electric rack. As a result, it’s expensive and shit to drive at the same time. Reliability is similarly compromised, and don’t get me started with the diesel-like power curve.
XB: That reliability and power curve are actually a result of a VGT being asked to work itself to death opposite a massively restricted intake and a cast-log exhaust.The fact that these masive system restrictions were not looked at suggest that the contestant simply didn’t pay much attention to their turbo system.
Verdict: Eliminated
The presence of a V8 on this build is sadly overshadowed by its lackluster looks (eugh, acid deep blue!), insufficient sportiness, and an as-ever-inexplicable investment in treated steel panels. To make matters worse, the V8 is still thirsty despite the high tech level.
Verdict: Eliminated
Another Treated Steelhead. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? YOU ARE NOT GOING INNA WOODS! The car itself is small, which is a good job since the pushrod six lacks any semblance of grunt. On the plus side, this is a very safe and easy to control sedan.
Verdict: Eliminated
This thing needs Jesus. Rock bottom reliability, above $2000 in service costs, and the best-in-comp acceleratin coupled with the worst braking. Yeah, great recipe there. And with the oversteery suspension coupled with lack of ABS, this is an AWD car with only so-so drivability.
Verdict: Eliminated
The Omni is pretty much tied for first in drivability - and it looks good. There is nothing else good to say, sadly, as the wacky 4000-rpm turbo spool, overstressed internals, and quality-barren components drag it down. And yes, the panels are indeed of treated steel.
Verdict: Eliminated
Easy to drive and cheap to own (though not necessarily to buy), the Stallion is a pretty serviceable compact. It’s not a very good sports compact, however, as it’s slow, does not corner well, and sits on skinny medium tires.
Verdict: Eliminated
The Vernun shares in the Jouster’s “fast to go, slow to stop” problem - I could call them the Tesla Twins, or something. With the worst drivability in the competition, it is plainly irrelevant if this 5-cylinder maniac -gear-limited in top speed, by the way - is fast or not.
XB: It’s expected of QFCs for obvious reasons, but it’s still interesting to dissect entries that are guilty of “failing to deliver a complete package”. This one, for instance, has great power and can put it down thanks to an AWD system - but AWD doesn’t make you corner or stop any faster, so when the 215-wide medium tires are so tasked, they fail miserably. The rear brakes are massively overboosted, the steering is not variable-effort, and there isn’t even any ESC to compensate properly. And with too much stuff and not enough quality, the Vernon manages to enter the top third of cars by weight despite having all-aluminum body panels.
Verdict: Eliminated
A variable-lift V6 all-wheel-drive monster, the Sigma is nonetheless distinct from most of the other superfast entries by its great comfort, drivability, sportiness and handsome looks. It also lacks a speed limiter and will reach over 170 mph. A first-draft pick, if expensive.
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
The aggressive-looking Nova appears well-appointed and does drive very well; however, it’s also expensive (thanks, ITBs; you’re totally worth it), not too quick on acceleration, and is made out of bare steel. Yes, even the chassis. Life expectancy? 4 years, tops.
Verdict: Eliminated
Mara’s entry is predictably cheap and predictably ugly (yes, ugly, not simple). The cost and weight discipline is remarkable (<2400 lbs in weight, $15600 cost) but so is the lack of safety. You will get flattened off a rear end collision.
XB: I have to say, by making styling important I may have accidentally ruined AndiD’s bread and butter combo (low price, bang for buck, styling absent). Remind me to double down, because without styling there is no Automation.
Verdict: Eliminated
Here’s a hatch with some real gumption. VTEC four, sporty tires, a satnav, and it costs under 20 grand. That’s a package so killer, one will even forgive the aforementioned VTEC’s obvious and unrefined torque dip, or the fixed console where a fifth seat ought to be.
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
Another budget VVL compact, and one that arguably does it better than the Hizaki in terms of power curve. Where it lacks, however, is in proper interior appointments - and generally, prestige-wise, the Delphinium may as well have “I AM CHEAP” written across the side of it.
Verdict: Eliminated
This unconventional aluminum-frame design is well-balanced, offering both sporty handling, great reliability and the best drivability of all competitors. However, it also looks real cheap - and is the slowest-accelerating car here, an ill omen for a sports compact offering.
XB: I actually do have to give oldmanbuick his flowers here: This is the sole non-manual car in the competition - sporting an advanced automatic - and though its shortfalls elsewhere prevent the Dauntless from scoring highly, this car actually has a fearsome drivability/sportiness combo of 81/30. The shockingly undersquare VVL engine, though, is a cheesefest among cheesefests - and not one that really contributes to the aforementioned stuff, either.
Verdict: Eliminated
Taut-looking. Fast. Nervy. The NTS is a rally driver’s dream - but it does have faults. The gearbox desperately wants a cruising overdrive, and not even a satnav can save you from the harshness of the overall quality of life. The Nodachi is almost a market leader - but not quite.
Verdict: Eliminated
This, however, is. The hot Archer, in its FWD V6 glory, is fast, rock-solidly dependable, not too hard to care for, and is priced reasonably. Now, it’s not the nicest inside, but smart chassis tuning allows the Cassian to be easy on its occupants regardless.
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
The similarly-positioned and also NA V6-powered Ion may not be built like a fridge as the Archer is - but it’s lighter, sportier, and more efficient. It doesn’t look as nice - but can be had with a satnav. This battle continues to the top levels of the sports compact market.
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
A pretty, nigh-on subcompact ankle-biter from Dalluha continues this streak of high-quality competitors. Devilishly fast, great to drive, and surging with variable-valve boxer power. Mind you, it does have all the integrity of a punctured coke can. But he who dares wins, right?
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
The Valiant Vivus may also look promising at first glance, but a deeper dive reveals an unsporty driving experience and a too-short gearing strategy. Now, the car is comfortable, but most customers would be more comfortable not having to fork over $24,700 over for it.
Verdict: Eliminated
Another V8; another doozy. The Nocere is a properly sporty wagon - but its fit and finish is years behind, and it lacks proper driver assists to boot. The brakes are grabby, and it’s about as comfortable as having your leg amputated with a hammer. It sure is handsome, though.
XB: Flat out one of the best designs entered, probably the best one not binned. However, that comfort? It’s 8.9. Even for a 1-star priority that could serve as a minmaxer’s “drop stat”, that’s insane. The engineering is overall is outmoded and inefficient for the current game version, with exactly two points of quality assigned anywhere (the fuel system); techpool-wasting variable e-steering; overboosted brakes; and finally, a mistuned and rock-hard suspension.
Verdict: Eliminated
Boasting an unreasonably low, wide stance with very RED wing mirrors, the Faure is the canyon carver of the bunch, delivering dominant grip and braking figures over all others. Only poor practicality and a host of middling QoL results keep it out of the top of the market.
XB: It is also a demonstration of how challenges can never fully reflect market pressures… No real-life company would release a “mere” 4-cylinder coupe and then grant it the aerodynamic qualities and the tire rating to push on to an unrestricted 180 mph.
Verdict: Eliminated
The underbranded Tigre car doesn’t sound like a terrible choice, but comparing it to the Faure ST4 above humbles it. Both 2-doors - but the Tigre is less imposing and more expensive, all while being slower every-which way.
Verdict: Eliminated
This 3-door liftback boasts a rustless all-aluminum body along with the best comfort value of all entries. Unfortunately, the only moderately fast powertrain along with a predictably high price - especially coupled with a lack of any serious elan - keeps the Fury in the midcard.
Verdict: Eliminated
For the $17.500 price, the Gelinas is very fast and very maneuverable - but you still only get what you pay for. Poor drivability and, again, coke-can-like safety both contribute to this automobile’s inability to truly stand out. So do the looks, which are very basic.
Verdict: Eliminated
Silly rabbit, TRIX are for kids. Might as well, be, given how miniature this thing is. However, it does manage to be very comfortable, pretty fast courtesy of a V6, and just safe enough. Firmer ride for more sportiness could well have put it into the finals - but alas.
Verdict: Eliminated
The Homada here comes with a first-in-industry 7-speed manual. And electric steering. And a proper lightweighted interior. And pretty much the most FWD drivability whilst still being sporty. Aw, man, that fuckin’ freak up on stage, shiiet, he’s got everything. Or does he?
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
Raddest shit I ever done seen. Freestyle doors, a deafeningly-screeching straight-four, all packed in a funky package with almost Prius proportions. Second-highest sportiness, and highest for FWD. Precious few downsides, despite the +2 rear shit-for-seats.
Verdict: Proceeds to Finals
Aside from the wonky Mazda Ryuga-like proportions and the utterly unsightly exterior (with default rims!), this is a decent little hot hatch. There are some weirdly detrimental choices, though, like the compact intake and the budget maxout.
Verdict: Eliminated
The Katsuni is designed very generically - but not poorly. It would have been a decent contender overall, were it just a little bit faster. The suspension has semi-active everything, but what good is that at little more than regular commuter speeds?
Verdict: Eliminated
Certainly a familiar face, the Crossdream. But there’s trouble in Aztekc paradise. No variable-effort rack, maxed-out price, thirsty-ass V6 with no real overdrive, sportiness is also only okay. It’s a car that’s getting there, but it ain’t there yet.
Verdict: Eliminated
@the-chowi IOOOOOOOOIO
@vero94773 & @Tsundere-kun
@shibusu IOOOOOOOOOOI.
@moroza OOOOOOOOO.O.O
@Kevin980 OOOOOOOOOIO
@iivansmith & @Oreology OIO
@Kyorg & @Karhgath OOOOO
Edit: What I will say is that, in my mind’s eye I have always seen the basic steel panels as being raw steel, followed by basic primer and paints on top. And that, with little to no knowledge of how the manufacting of cars works, seeing the treated steel option as some basic rustproofing that is applied before the painting step. I will probably need to reread the in game tool tip to see if it defines it’s use for cars in more harsh environments.
Not trying to complain, just trying to explain what my thought process for that particular choice.
Partial alu is what I view as the realistic modern panel choice; I mean, I’m pretty sure my '12 CR-V does it. Saves weight, makes for a bit more corrosion resistance, and importantly, isn’t all that expensive in comparison. There’s basically no downside, if you ask me
To me the smoking gun is the fact that partial aluminum (which is widely understood to be a viable panel material up until the end of the game, given we can’t have “partial alu with treated steel”) is cheaper than TrSt.
This indicates that TrSt is definitely not general issue - it might be something you’d still choose to throw onto a passenger car if it were winterized, maybe, but in challenges where envres isn’t literally top priority, it’d just be dead weight. Therefore I consider steel panels (NOT bare steel chassis) acceptable pretty much up until the end of the game, and partial alu little more than a challenge budget hog that gets even worse if you enjoy spamming body quality.
Automation top speeds are usually way above real life, so I figured I just leave it be and not have a limiter. It has fully clad undertray, but even that is just maxing fuel eco (cheese, no cheese? I didn’t even consider that possibility). Having no undertray would drop the top speed to 270 km/h. And my car was pretty much based on the Peuogeot RCZ which came out in 2009 and has a 4-cyl (there weren’t any good bodies so I had to use the R8 which is too wide). QoL is Comfort? Well, it is what it is
QFC50: ENDING ON A HIGH NOTE
7th Place: @vero94773 & @Tsundere-kun - Archer Cassian GT250
Due to the strength of an overall balanced approach with a “non-crazy” engine and general spec, the Cassian GT250 sailed easily into this high-quality crop of spots compacts. Sadly, however, this erring on the side of balance does it no favors in the company of six sports compacts that are all sportier than it, all nicer and more prestigious than it, and - very interestingly - all more miserly than it. Now, the Archer offering will likely survive anything short of a nuclear apocalypse, but that’s a fringe issue - and its $22,000 asking price seems less impressive when you consider that the high-tech Homada Versus and the ferocious Nordwagen Skadi S are both available for that same sum while being otherwise more impressive automobiles. (What’s worse: Though even a perfect visual score would not have hoisted the Cassian above any of the other entries, it should be noted that it only got an average score in terms of the finalists due to the styling faux pas on the door seams. I tried to ignore it, I really did.)
6th Place: @the-chowi - Dragonello Sigma S30 Quadra
The Sigma S30 is like a square-clipped hedge. Very correct, very well-rounded, very competitive. The problem it runs into is that whereas all the other finalists have been able to make it to the fray with more modest stickers, the Dragonello offering commands one of $24,400, making it this crop’s premium offering. It may be the second-quickest car here due to AWD, and the most powerful courtesy of a mighty 260hp V6, but it’s also the worst-handling - and, thanks to having open diffs front and rear, hardly able to disguise that fact. The Sigma also fails to command much respect or interest considering the price, having the least prestige of everything but the already-gone Archer. I congratulate the designer on a job well done, even if inspired by a real car - but even that only leaves the Sigma sixth.
5th Place: @shibusu - Ilaris Ion FRS
Having vanquished its rival in the hot Archer Cassian, the Ion itself now stands vanquished. While it is better than the Archer in most ways save for the reliability and price, chiefly due to daring to offer good infotainment, it now inherits the Sigma’s mantle as the most expensive vehicle here. Now, there is good reason for it: the Ilaris car is very comfortable, safe, and it corners like it’s on rails - but at the same time, that same cornering performance means it’s somewhat twitchier than the others. The comfort may make it still decently easy to live with - but not to look at, because the Ion FRS is tied for the worst-rated car in all of the finals by looks. This is mostly courtesy of the rear half of the car, with a weird faux-glass C-pillar (very 1990s) and the contemporary but still not pretty excess that are the glassless-housing Altezza taillights. It was a good run, but this lightweight sedan goes no further than 5th.
4th Place: @moroza - Nordwagen Skadi S 4x4
I’ll be honest, I was a huge fan of this build - moreso than most others that saw it. I’m a sucker for compact cars that manage to “keep the faith” of a luxury or performance brand they are badged as, and this subcompact delivers just that vibe in spades. Sonorous Boxer with instant throttle response? Check. Light weight? Check. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap upscale parts with cut-rate quality? Check. Therein, however, also lies the problem. The Skadi might be a phenomenal performance bargain with its sub-5-second 0-60 run and its great handling all for $22,000, and I can’t take away any credit that’s due for that - but it’s also compromised. It’s the most expensive car here to feed and care for - and the one that will die the quickest, with only ‘sufficient’ rustproofing and a flimsy structure that contributed to the worst crash performance out of the entire field of 33 contestants. A great effort and a surprising looker, the Skadi S’ case now rests and settles down at 4th place.
PODIUM (left to right):
@Kyorg & @Karhgath - Westland Wyvern LZR;
@iivansmith & @Oreology - Homada Versus TCe;
@Kevin980 - Hizaki Dato Series-R
Our final trio are a sort of vicious triangle. The Hizaki is the cheapest car at $19,700 - the other two cost $22,000 a pop. The Westland is by far the best performer, with the other two closely matched on drag strip and skidpad alike. Finally, the Homada is the nicest to live with, with the remaining two cars being at a safety, drivability, and prestige disadvantage - again, by similar amounts.
The Versus is a great car, period - and a pretty good sports sedan, too. You can row through seven speeds, you have a pretty good set of wide sports tires, and this is actually the most powerful car still in the fray with 225 horsepower; this is all while you can enjoy variable-rack EPS, a sports interior with a satnav, and great peace of mind thanks to a high-strength safety cage. The problem is: How is a car with all this quality of life still not all that comfortable? And why, why is it still the slowest?
The miniature but creeping cracks start to show here. The seven-speed should be started in second for maximum acceleration, for one, with the first being almost a granny gear - and this market segment is not for grannies! The looks are middling and boring, too, even with the spoiler. Still, with all the goodies, it would have swept the field if only it shared the same price as the Hizaki and not the Westland. For $22,000 this isn’t better enough than the Hizaki and is worse than the Westland.
Between the Dato Series-R and the Wyvern LZR, it’s a David vs Goliath type of fight - and unlike the biblical encounter, it’s actually close. The Hizaki car was the fourth-cheapest and yet close to best among the entire field of entrants - no mean feat. The Westland, through force of design and engineering and not a little bit of meta elbow grease, was the best of the best - and still at a reasonable price.
Between the two, long-term cost of ownership, reliability, drivability, and practicality (between the Wyvern’s extra doors and the Dato’s hatchback form factor) are all a wash, with the Hizaki having marginally better safety and comfort. Where the Wyvern makes up for its extra cost is twofold: appearance and performance. For a front-driver, acceleration is frighteningly quick at 5.5 seconds to 60, and it bests anything short of the superlow Faure ST4 on the skidpad. It also has a sportier overall feel, NOT LEAST BECAUSE IT SCREAMS RIGHT INTO YOUR EAR!… Ahem. While this all is great, the Hizaki Dato’s figures are nothing to scoff at either. Is a second less to 60 mph really worth $2300? Maybe not…
That brings us to appearance. This is the real rift between victor and vanquished. The Hizaki car is a hot hatch of contemporary and fitting look. The Wyvern, however… Is a main character car. Decals? Check. Rakish, coupelike shape? Check. Aston Martin-style headlights? Check. Just on balance, one could argue that the greater expense would make the Hizaki desirable to anybody who can’t quite afford a Wyvern, and the target demographic isn’t the richest… Problem is, the Hizaki Dato Series-R looks like just another hot hatch, even though it happens to basically be the best of them. The Westland Wyvern LZR… Looks like absolutely nothing else. And that’s why it wins QFC50.
Everybody had a monocoque and a manual gearbox except @oldmanbuick’s entry, which opted for a semi-spaceframe and an advanced auto.
19 cars used struts and 14 used wishbones for their front suspension; in terms of rear ends, we saw 11 wishbone cars, 15 multilink cars, 6 semi-trailing arm cars and 2 twist-beam cars. No cars of the latter two types made it to the finals.
There were two V8, nine V6, two straight-5 and three B4 engines; the remainder were i4s.
Eleven cars opted for some sort of AWD, including 2 of the 7 finalists and 2 of the 3 longitudinal boxer cars; @bdub1 was alone in installing an FWD boxer drivetrain.
Just 3 cars went with an open differential - including 2 FWD ones.
7 contestants opted for a turbo - 4 VGTs and 3 twin-scrolls, all with ball bearings. Y’all should learn how to tune turbos - if people were to manage that then we could have had a finalist with one, easily. @Riley alone had a twin-turbo setup - a perfectly decent one with spool at 2200 RPM, for what it’s worth.
The mean design score was 5.85/10.
21 out of 33 cars “failed” a judging priority. Six of the seven finalists did not.
THE END
now this is epic
How much of a realism penalty would VGT have been if realism was a priority? Given they aren’t at all common in gasoline engines. And did the actual turbo/no turbo make a difference if we ignore stats? I opted to go no turbo because it was cheaper and better stats (my turbo option was 228 hp from 1,8 liter i4 with 1800 rpm spool, twin scroll, if any of this makes a difference)
It probably would have been a minor penalty here; VGTs become a more realistic choice the newer you go.
In terms of turbo/no turbo, I think either/or - including your example - would have been a viable choice. The biggest challenge is tuning them well, which few of the contestants this time managed to do.
@Texaslav Respect on the review.
To anyone I ask, what is VGT?
For the “shit to drive” comment, I know that electric power steering provides little to no feedback, but virtually eliminates torque steer (accompanied with mac struts?), had I not had that…It would’ve been a torque steer monster…I picked my battle and lost?
I thought about AWD at the end of my build smh, adding it at end I felt like I had to make too many sacrifices…the driveability looked good tho
I tuned my turbo according to a Killrob Automation video on Youtube. This is not the first time I’ve had restrictive intakes on a turbo…I honestly dont understand whats going on there and how to fix that. How do you know if you have a restrictive intake on a turbo?
I do need to work on my turbo torque curves since I really do try to have them spool before 2k rpm…I guess I shouldnt do that.
Edit: I paid attention to the turbo system, I just dont understand it fully.
Variable Geometry Turbo.
The winning car looks absolutely stunning, I think the victory is deserved. That´s clearly another level of fixture madness.
Also, considering most challenges at the moment are anything but quick, @Texaslav managed to really fulfil the Q in QFC, and staying true to the intended character of the challenges with his reviews.
Couldn’t agree more. Great quick turnaround on the reviews! And congrats to the stunning winning car!
As for my car, I’m a bit surprised it was the only outlier on chassis and transmission. As for the engine, I’m pretty I did some research before building the engine family and found some examples of similarly under square engines historically, so I would debate the cheesefest label. But it is admittedly an engine drawn from lore as an efficiency focused engine I was trying to adapt (not very successfully) as a performance variant.
After much discussion, me and Kyorg will pass on hosting for QFC51. Up to you @Kevin980 if you want to host the next round.
Incredible round and hosting as usual from Texas. Was a blast to engineer this incredible little car.
Thanks guys but due to me having zero experience in hosting and not even having an idea for the next QFC, i think i’m not ready yet to be a host for a big challenge like this one, i’ll stick to just making cars for now.
@iivansmith @Oreology it’s free real estate
