QFC50 - Pocket Rocket Man [RULES DELIB]

QFC50 - Pocket Rocket Man

The world did not end with Y2K. The nerds did their jobs and life continued without a hitch. However, a different tragedy did occur: A dark age for rear-drive sports coupes. The Supra was dead; the Camaro was dead, partially replaced by a competent but boring Australian 2-door sedan; the Mustang lay languishing as an old stick-axle dog; the 300ZX and RX-7 both died and were replaced by downmarket alternatives.

The reality was, though, that these cars had to fail: They offered only somewhat remarkable performance with very remarkable compromise. The rooflines were low, the ride was harsh, cargo room was often compromised - and while some of those clung to reasonable prices, service and upkeep could be expensive. The segment that once housed the populist “pony car” niche had become hard to access - a trend that would later continue when the class was revitalized, with an arms race extending to the top of the performance genre.

And so it came to pass that a different kind of car took up the mantle of “people’s fast car” - the front-drive sports compact. Or, if you’re European, the hot hatch specifically. Either way - those cars were based on modern and contemporary cars in the same compact segment that modern budget buyers dwelt in. None of the ostentatious attention-seeking (okay, maybe a little); none of the outdated underpinnings; all of the modern conveniences; and a turbo, or a V6, or something of that nature to spice things up.

In 2006, a Mustang GT lost to a Golf GTI and a Cobalt SS - both its inferiors by 100 horses - around the high-speed VIR course. The Mazdaspeed3 was captivating the same hearts and minds that had Lamborghini posters hanging. The age of the sports compact had arrived.

RULES


Car Model Year: 2000+.

Car Trim and Engine Variant Year: 2006 only.

Body: Types: Sedan, Coupe, Hatchback, Wagon, People Carrier allowed.

Wheelbase: 2.55 - 2.75 m (100.4 - 108.3 in).

Drivetrain Layout: Front Transverse only - UNLESS you have a Boxer engine, in which case Front Longitudinal only.

Convertibles: Prohibited to streamline judging.

Seat Count: At least 2 rows with at least 2 seats each. “+2/+3” seats on rear row allowed.

Drive Type: FWD is free;

AWD of any kind adds $2,000 to approximate cost;

RWD Prohibited entirely.

Aerodynamics: No positive downforce - that is, both the front and rear downforce in the Performance menu must not be positive, and the lines in the Downforce graph must not be pointing up.

Fuel Type: Premium Unleaded, 90 AKI/95 RON.

Exhaust: At least a single muffler required.

Emissions Standard: WES 9 or higher.

No Racing Parts, including tires.

Approximate Cost: $25,000 or less

Techpool: $50M or less (Your value is the sum of the 2 underscored values below; keep that below $50M)

Style Guide:

Make sure your car has lights (headlights, taillights, turn signals), wipers, side mirrors - that is, make sure it looks like a car that could exist.

You are not required to hook up every light properly with automation’s lighting feature.

Do not make the car look like something it isn’t, either via fixtures or advanced trim settings. If you lose the roof, or use ATS to raise the suspension by 10 whole inches - you’re out. Tasteful ATS adjustments, however, are allowed.

The above point applies especially to making “fake” convertibles - especially given this challenge doesn’t allow real ones.


PRIORITIES


:star: :star:
:star: :star:

Looks

Perception is reality. Put your best foot forward. Rasslin’ is still real to me, dammit!

You get the point. In order to even be considered by the discerning and emotional audience that are car enthusiasts, a sports compact must look good and it must look right. What that means is purposeful, non-boring design, and a degree period-correctness.

Since this is a QFC, I obviously won’t be inspecting tiny things like the number and sizing of your windshield washer nozzles. Just make sure that the car looks like a 2000s sports compact car and that you like the way it looks.


:star: :star: :star:

Sportiness

What’s as important to a hot car as looking good? Not many things, but the e-brake mating ritual, The peel into first out of reverse, and the swerve between semis and seniors all come to mind. A sports compact cannot under any circumstances turn out to be a pig.

Purchase Price

In any segment that isn’t Rolls Royce, price is a factor. And in a segment like “non-luxury compact cars”, it’s a big one - the desire to drive fast tends to magically shink your wallet, not grow it.

Prestige

While many of these cars are derivatives of everyday grocery getters, they should not act as if they’re nothing more than that. Quality, distinction and thorough engineering show that the customer is cared for and isn’t being sold something bland and unexceptional.


:star: :star:

Drivability

Since a hot hatch or sedan is driven everywhere, it needs to be good to its owner. Machismo only gets you so far, and if the car is a bothersome handful, sooner or later you’ll renounce your folly and sulk on back to the car lot to trade your washboard in for a mildly well-equipped Honda Civic.

Reliability

Once you’ve blown all your money on a fancy new pocket rocket, the last thing you want is for it to fail to bring you to work. This stat isn’t a 3-star only because I expect a healthy average in the first place - but make no mistake, building a stereotypical Alfa Romeo may well be betting on bad odds.

Running Costs

You are not building true rally homologation; nor a GT3 car; nor a Ferrari Daytona. A car that you can’t afford to drive makes no sense to own in this segment, so take care in noticing how much it drinks and how easy it is to keep drinking.

Performance

Gone are the days of the twin-cam GTI or CRX being sporty enough: twin-cams and even direct injection are common now. Nay, if you want any respect or cred, you might need more cylinders, forced induction, or sky-high revs.


:star:.

Safety

Granted, the target audience for these cars is not that concerned for their own well-being - but their parents and partners still are, and in some cases they control their funds. Deathtraps may be at a disadvantage in 2006 AD.

Practicality

As always, more space and more usability are welcome when your car’s a pocket rocket - but at the same time, we’re talking youngsters here. They’ll squeeze 10 of themselves into a 4-seater for fun.

Comfort

As with drivability, every macho has his (or her) limit. Comfort isn’t the greatest of priorities, but it may be appreciated in the era of compact-car IRS and the upmarket tour de force that all Golfs past Mk IV have been.

Environmental Resistance

As stated to death in this brief, of the appeal of modern sports compacts is that they fulfill the responsibilities of normal cars. Not least among them is staying in one piece and good shape at least until the owner elects to resell.


INSPIRATIONS


Volkswagen Golf GTI

Saturn ION Red Line

Ford Focus ST

RenaultSport Megane

Mazdaspeed 3

Subaru WRX

Honda Civic Type R

Chevrolet Malibu SS

Dodge Caliber SRT4

Opel Zafira OPC

Alfa Romeo 156 GTA

Seat Leon Cupra


SUBMISSIONS AND DEADLINES


Submissions Open: 10/31/2024 11:59 PM CST

Submissions Close: 11/07/2024 11:59 PM CST

All-reviews-out Commitment: 11/14/2024 11:59 PM CST

Extensions: None - not even if the openbeta starts.

Name Convention: QFC50 - [yourname] as the Engine Family and Car Model name.
Engine Variant and Car Trim are free.

Submission Method: DM your .car file to me on this forum; Make a reply on this forum post with at least one picture of the car.

Resubmissions: Unlimited until the deadline, provided the same DM thread is used. Note that I will use the last resubmit - even if you introduce an illegal part that a previous resubmit didn’t have.


NOTICE OF INTENT


The above rules, priorities and have been laid out to produce entrants that reflect the landscape of midmarket compact (C-seg) performance in the mid-2000s, with limited but legitimate leeway to introduce lower-D-segment size or upmarket aspects and less-than-meta body styles. I invite discussion during the deliberation period on whether anything should be changed and whether any errors, loopholes or abuse opportunities exist in the above rules. Should there be any question or suggestion on the rules or stylistic guidelines, it may be delivered either in private (DMs) or in public (This thread) in a respectful manner.


CHANGELOG

10/30/2024: Reduced both upper and lower wheelbase bound by 0.05m; Swapped priorities for running costs and prestige

10/31/2024: Added rule on downforce; extra two inspirations

24 Likes

What kind of acceleration numbers are we looking for?

Hm. I was going to say something about the 1-series but I realize it is a notch above so yeah, guess I am fine with the RWD ban after all.

@Vento There is no right answer, but the inspirations should be between 5.5 and 7.5 seconds to 60. I can definitely imagine a wider range for the entries in the challenge because I did not list severely underpowered or overpriced (thus overpowered) cars in inspirations.

@Knugcab My rationale was actually a bit different. To my mind, most RWD in this size and price range, and with this type of engine, were specifically luxury- rather than sport-coded at the time. You could get a 1-series for the price of a GTI but said exact 1-series would be absolutely slow and porcine. Likewise for the C-Class SportCoupe; Even the one with the V6 was noted for handling which was, uhhh, suboptimal.

3 Likes

I’ve been trying to copy the inspirations like people say but when I do that my car somehow doesn’t look nearly as good :frowning:

More specifically, a dark age for affordable rear-drive sports coupes - the BMW M3 and Mercedes-AMG CLK remained in production during this time, but they were positioned too far upmarket to be within reach of the budget of the common man (and their longitudinally-mounted engines, which weren’t horizontally opposed, placed them further outside the scope of this QFC anyway).

And the de facto Camaro replacement you mentioned was the 2003-06 Pontiac GTO - an Americanized export-spec Holden V2 Monaro that came to North America too late in its platform’s lifespan (being based on the 1997-vintage Commodore VT).

Anyway, I’m having a tough time deciding between front- or all-wheel-drive, and an NA or turbo engine, for my planned entry, considering how liberal this rule set is (within reason) - but the minimum emissions target of WES 9 is meant to accommodate NA engines, which are less likely to reach lower emissions levels.

2 Likes

Does anyone want to help design my car? I already designed most of it but it could use some detailing worlk.

So no longitudinal FWD for non Boxer engined cars at all?

2.6 min wheelbase seems high.

How about a SVC discount for turbo? The in-game penalty is as if you’re replacing the turbo itself every two years.

2 Likes

Does seem large to me, these cars would be much bigger than a small sporty car in Europe but I assumed Americans just wanted larger cars. 2.5m and up would be my idea but I do think all the inspirations are larger than that.

2 Likes

I would lower it to 2.5. This was when cars in this segment started to grow, but some cars introduced in the early 00s like Alfa 147, Nissan Sentra, still were under 2.6 when I check things up. Would give a tad more flexibility without wrecking realism IMO.

4 Likes

Yep. I was going to do transverse only but that’s a realism issue for Boxers. To boot, longitudinal FWD cars are typically too upmarket for the class we have in mind here anyhow.

I’m grappling with this and the input is welcome. The challenge is intended to be more global than American in nature; Personally though I am loath to include 2.5m because that would allow B-seg into the competition, and that’s smaller than what I’m hoping for.

The 147 and Sentra are both practically 90s cars lingering in the new millenium - and where with the Sentra that’s all I have to say, the 147 (WB=2.55m) specifically was supposedly marketed as what Alfa called an “Elite Sub-C segment”, so basically “C in price/equipment but not size”. Its sedan bretheren the 156 was a 2.6 wheelbase car.

A solution that I would not be opposed to would be to have 2.55m/100.3in as the lower limit, thus practically allowing the 147 and the SEAT Leon II; I would also like advice on whether to keep the upper bound at 2.80m or to constrict it to 2.75m.

I don’t believe that is necessary. Turbo fuel economy in this game acts as if you only have to refuel every two years, as well - and svc/econ share a slot between them atm.

2 Likes

2.55 to 2.75 would probably help include more European sized cars. 2.75m is already the wheelbase of the Vectra and Mondeo of 2006 which wouldn’t be sports compact cars here.

2 Likes

I will also agree with this, given that the new range would be more in line with what I’m expecting from a sport compact.

255 seems fine to me. Or maybe 254 for a nice, even 100 inch limit in an US-centric challenge?

(Edit: which I just read that it wasn’t…mushy brain or something)

This should balance out the extra grip (and hence drivability and sportiness) provided by an AWD layout. In effect, AWD cars will have their price capped at $23k AMU, not $25k as FWD cars are. That said, I’ve been experimenting with two test mules (an AWD turbo coupe and an NA FWD hot hatch) to see which one of the two works best for me.

This reflects the fact that a few of the body choices within the permitted size range have provision for +2/+3 rear seats, but not full-sized ones.

Please man all three of your replies here have been sports game reporting on what other people have said. I don’t think we need it regurgitated to understand.

15 Likes

… Nope… I will not argue styling in this thread…

So I presume this means we’re not allowed to swap out the roof or bumpers—front or rear—using ShadowAura’s or Maxbombe’s roof pack? And all cars must more or less appear as the body dictates?

2 Likes

why wouldnt you be able to swap bumpers

I do not believe in the base body dictating what a finished build looks like, but if you can take advantage of that to achieve your ideas with a selected body set, by all means do it

i think what Texaslav means is making a type of car something it isnt: an mpv to a hatchback, a sedan to a coupe, a coupe to a convertible, sedan to wagon, stuff like that. i’m assuming here that swapping roofs and bumpers and anything at all while retaining car type is perfectly acceptable.


an example: these are both sedans, finished result vs base body (using shadows roof pack) to move this 90s body into the 00s

anti flood mechanism

5 Likes

I’m a huge fan of Shadow’s roofs—there are a handful of bodies [coughSunflowercough] where it’s necessary to get a decent sedan. I can get by in this build with or without the roof, but I wanted to make sure before I got too committed to a look.

3 Likes