QFC62 - Lose Your Top [RULES DELIB]

Community Challenges & Competitions
1

QFC62 - Lose Your Top

No revolution happens in a day. It may be true that the air around convertible legality cleared around the early 80s, and that the illustrious Eunos Roadster was able to bring the traditional roadster back before that decade was down. However, between modern corporate viscosity, the dead-end adventure of budget sports compacts, and the steady but undeniably slow march of maturing injection and valvetrain technology, the new golden age of classic sports cars did not arrive until the very turn of the century.

And then it happened. The renaissance was as vibrant and diverse as it was radical: A contingent of this revolution sought to define sports cars as a whole as fun track cars pulling massive G with no frills, while others instead went upscale and spawned the small, fashionable luxury hardtop. More still attempted to juxtapose against the above and become the common, sane middle ground. The best part? Between the 90s carryovers and the newcomers, between the thrifty and the extravagant, between the streetable and the thrashable, there was no immediate right answer. There were a couple losers, but also lots of winners. Think you have what it takes to hang? Prove it. Can you be one of the best? Can you be THE best? Step right up.

RULES

Game Version: Stable.

Car Model Year: 1990+.

Car Trim and Engine Variant Year: 2002 only.

Body: Types: Sedan, Coupe, Hatchback allowed. 3 doors or less.

Wheelbase: 2.25 - 2.65 m (88.6 - 104.3 in). (I think this is equivalent to 2.3 - 2.6 with rounding, but it’s on you to check)

Drivetrain Layout: AWD banned

Convertibles: Mandatory; Detachable Soft Top Banned. Elaborated on in the Style Guide.

Seat Count: One row only, 2 or 3 seats.

Fuel Type: Unleaded only, no higher octane than 93 AKI/98 RON.

Exhaust: At least a single muffler required.

Emissions Standard: WES 9 or higher.

No Racing Parts, including tires. Semi-slicks are not race tires, and are allowed.

Approximate Cost: Any - utilize your judgement.

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

Style Guide and Convertible Rules:

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 do something drastic like use ATS to raise the suspension by 10 whole inches - you’re out. Tasteful ATS adjustments, however, are allowed.

This is a convertible-only round, and the body you choose must be classified as one in game. In the rules above, I clarified that detachable soft-tops are banned - that is because it was, even if available on any car in the era, it was an extremely niche and ultimately unpopular feature, and I would consider it a nuisance.

There will be a stats adjustment regarding convertible tops. Namely, I am removing the interior space demerit from the more complex top options, and adding slightly higher prestige boosts to same. Rest assured that the intended result, as in QFC48 (where this worked well) is to make each roof choice viable. You should choose your type according to the vibe the build is meant to have - so don’t make an auto-hardtop Elise or a manual-softtop SLK, please.

It is your choice on whether to portray your car with the top on or off. If it is on, I at least expect it to be consistent with its type (hardtop = painted, soft-top = cloth or other soft texture). If it is off, there should be at least an excuse interior.

Speaking of interiors - as usual per QFC, they are not required and will not be separately judged. However, I am human - and if somebody makes a car with no top and a really pretty interior, I may be unable to look the other way.


PRIORITIES

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

Looks

An ugly roadster is like an ugly trophy wife: What even is the point? With very limited practicality concerns, this is your chance and your cue to make a vehicle with amazing proportions and rakish surfacing and fixtures.

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 roadster and that you like the way it looks.


:star: :star: :star:

Sportiness

If a sporty driving experience wasn’t relevant, people wouldn’t have minded the appliance-like 307CC stuff. A sports car needs to act like it.

Purchase Price

This is not the rarified air of old money where bang for buck is irrelevant. People buy MX-5s because they’re affordable; people buy Boxsters because they can’t afford 911s. Very importantly, people won’t buy an MX-5 for Boxster money. This priority doesn’t mean go cheap; it means spend your money well.

Prestige

In the 2000s, you could go to almost any dealer and come up on a hot-rodded version of a family car that could just about fit your whole garage in the cargo hold. A sports car has to mean business and use serious equipment for the price; why bother otherwise?


:star: :star:

Safety

A spirit is haunting Europe - the spirit of EuroNCAP. Various copies of said spirits now inhabit the world at large. It’s no longer acceptable to sell a total deathtrap; some people would even say that’s for the better, for some reason.

Comfort

There is room for purity in the sports car world; but equally so for a spot of luxury. You’re getting a toy, after all; might as well get a good one.

Reliability

Cars like this were often second or weekend cars, without the need to be bulletproof or unkillable - not like hot hatches. Yet and still, and as said in the budget priority, they were still bought by ordinary people with real concerns about the tendency of a vehicle to be a money pit.

Performance

Do I really need to explain why this one may be important? They’re sports cars, for crying out loud. Not all of them will set track records, not many of them will end their existence in a fireball after a street race, but a healthy dose of oomph is much needed.


:star:

Drivability

On the one hand, and as mentioned above, people got into these cars knowing they wanted a real driving experience, not a cakewalk. On the other, widowmakers don’t sell - even the most legendary of unwieldy cars had to shake that reputation before the phony tough actually bought them en masse.

Running Costs

With a sporty, perhaps track-capable roadster, maintenance is less a chore than it is a ritual; you’ll often spend more than the bare minimum, and quite probably you’ll treat poor fuel consumption as a you problem and not the car’s. That said, easy and cheap maintenance broadens a sports car’s appeal considerably - we may laugh at the term “hairdresser’s car”, but there’s no greater compliment for a manufacturer.

Environmental Resistance

For all people know, these aren’t going to be unrepeatable classics with high resale values to begin with - but every bit counts. Don’t make your sports coupe out of poor quality, untreated Russian steel.



SUBMISSIONS AND DEADLINES

Submissions Open: 08/09/2025 11:59 PM CST

Submissions Close: 08/16/2025 11:59 PM CST

All-reviews-out Commitment: 08/23/2025 11:59 PM CST

Extensions: As needed. No individual exceptions.

Name Convention: QFC62 - [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. You are responsible for resubmission - I will not alert you of broken rules, no matter how asinine.


NOTICE OF INTENT

This is my most serious attempt in a QFC-format challenge to cover more than one price segment and a broad bowl of niches. There really is no wrong answer; hell, maybe even an automatic gearbox will work out somehow. Don’t get, frankly, distracted with metachasing. This goes double for roof options, fuel grade, etc - go for coherence instead.


CHANGELOG

  • 08/07/2025 - Fixed minor snafu #1

  • 08/08/2025 - Adjusted wheelbase range; Banned AWD.

11 Likes
2

Now this seems interesting - the time has come to make another Japanese shitbox - but this time not shit…

1 Like
3

In other words, the wheelbase must not be less than 2.30m exactly or be greater than 2.70m exactly.

Compatibility with WES 10 or 11 is possible in 2002, but it’s not required. It is possible to achieve WES 9 with an OHV engine, though, but it’s more difficult.

Those tires should also be radial with a width ending in 5, not 0.

4

Any rules regarding ‘convertibles’ that have fixed B and C pillars and a soft top? Like a ‘Cabrio Coach’ or semi-convertible Fixed-profile convertible.

5

I just cooked up a test mule built on the vanilla '09 Mako body (2.3m wheelbase - at the exact bottom of the wheelbase range) powered by a 250-bhp 2.0L F4, driving the rear wheels via a 6-speed manual gearbox and helical LSD, and built on a glued aluminum monocoque with aluminum panels, with dual wishbone suspension at each corner, combining some of the best aspects of the AP1 S2000 (specific output), 986 Boxster (horizontally opposed engine), and S2 Elise (alloy chassis). I’ll need to examine it further before making a final decision on its viability, though.

Speaking of which, I think the latter two cars I just mentioned are glaring omissions from the visual inspiration list - in fact, the S2 Elise also donated its platform to the Opel Speedster/Vauxhall VX220 (which is listed among the inspirations).

6

is hardtop allowed

7

Both detachable and automatic hardtops are allowed - just make sure it fits the vibe of your car. As an example, while a smaller, mid-engined, Elise-like entry can get away with having a detachable hardtop (in other words, a targa) to save weight, a larger, heavier, front-engined, and more SLK-like car could make more sense with an automatic hardtop - to better suit its mini-grand tourer vibe.

8

y r u everywhere :sob::sob::sob:

5 Likes
9

Yeah abg don’t run my challenge for me

But yeah, hardtop is allowed. As long as the game recognizes the body as a convertible (and you don’t choose detachable soft top) you’re fine

3 Likes
10

I know purchase price is already on the top tier of non-looks criteria, but I’m wondering if maybe it should be moved up to be on par with looks? I’m only suggesting this because there is no price limit, so you will presumably end up with cars at very different price levels–as you note in reference to the MX-5, the Boxster, and the 911. There’s a risk that if price isn’t weighted heavy enough, the round will just end up being dominated by the 911s. (While also acknowledging the flip-side risk that all the cheap cars will be on top of price is weighted too heavily)

Maybe you just reserve the right to adjust the weighting of price based on what kind of price spread you get in the entries?

Or, alternatively, maybe you could set 2-3 different price categories people could enter, and then have both a category winner and then overall winner?

11

Good point/question. The fact of the matter is, if I put it in the 4-star category, then it would send a message that I want something cheap - and you acknowledge the possibility as well. That’s not necessarily true.

That’s the benefit of keeping scores blackboxed - don’t need to lay my cards on the table. I have a pretty sophisticated plan for how I evaluate bang-for-buck; as stated in the brief, I want a lot of price brackets to end up viable, and that doesn’t mean I hope that’s the case - it means I will ensure that’s the case. Hence why I admonished y’all against metachasing.

2 Likes
12

yo lowkey i think this rule is some bullshi i think you should abolish it thanks twin :rose: :heart:

image
image237×259 18.4 KB

(in all seriousness, a body that i think would be great - the 90’s Evade, doesn’t have an in between the 2.26m and the 2.53 so that’s pretty problematic if you’re after a specific style)

13

You have a point.

Another problem is that the 2.45m wheelbase variants of the '09 Mako mod body set has two variants that look like they can be convertibles, but in fact aren’t due to not having any convertible type other than “None” (which is explicitly not permitted in this challenge) available for either. Also, the 2.26m wheelbase versions of the '09 Mako mod would not be eligible under the current rule set (although the 2.30m wheelbase vanilla version currently is, by a whisker). The 2.30m wheelbase version of the '05 Mercy, however, is eligible - but only just.

14

I think the Mako is way too much of a 2010s supercar body for this challenge; I can see the appeal of the Evade. I will seriously consider switching the body requirements to 2.25-2.65 (Those who are building 2.7s, speak now or forever hold your peace!) - but mostly because I want the smaller FR and MR bean to be in the challenge.

3 Likes
15

I’ll put my oar in and say I was originally using the tiny evade body for an entry. It is a shame a 2.35m wheelbase variant doesn’t exist but it is what it is.

It does take a bit of a pummeling on comfort so I think allowing it would make people juggle that and sportiness

16

A valid argument indeed - although the smallest variants of the '09 Mako (in vanilla or mod forms) can indeed be used to make an Elise-like MR coupe or roadster, even I find it a bit too edgy for the early 2000s. The '05 Mercy also has an edgier look to it compared to the '92 Evade, but not to the same extent as the Mako. Also, changing the wheelbase range would also allow us to use the '00 Exige mod body (specifically, the 2.28m wheelbase variant) if we wanted to. Besides, when I tried out the '09 Mako, it was actually heavier by comparison - not what you’d want when you’re looking to save weight.

17

I think this is a good idea, esp if you wanna keep the ”no rounding” rule. 2.7m seems way to long for something in this segment and 2.25 unlocks a few good bodies. For example the exige body which is 2.28m and would be perfect for something like an opel speedster inspired car.

18

My thoughts exactly. Adjusting the wheelbase range wouldn’t just allow us to use the 2.28m '00 Elise/Exige-like mod body set, but also other small bodies such as the 2.26m '95 Super Wedge, 2.25m '91 Beet, and 2.25m '87 Fatale.

19

Anything much over 2.5m is going to look strange with only one row of seats anyway.