Hold on a second… The winning car was built to 50s standards, using construction methods of that era, without a catalytic converter, and has the worst handling and performance of the bunch; it looks really dull from some angles and obnoxious from others. You should make catalytic converters mandatory in later rounds. Speaking of which, what will the next round be about?
Hahaha!!! Bogliq is indeed pronounced Bog-lick and I’m aware of the toilet humour inherent in that statement! 
3rd is a nice result and congrats to TheUltimateDOOM for the win 
EDIT: Hang on… On every objective measue the Dynamite is a terrible car (no offense meant to you personally Mr Doom!) so how does it beat everyone else??? I don’t know or care if my car is the best but the screenshots clearly show that the Dynamites stats are hideous compared to the competition! 
I’m not going to dispute where I ended up in the results (though I’d have loved to be higher 
), but what does this comment mean?
It has four doors, door handles, 5 seats, definitely some space inside…???
Oooh 4th, almost missed my car
I’m proud of that
it only costs 10k and price is, by design flaw, the biggest factor in the scoring stage
I think you used the standalone version of the mod, I no longer have the door handles mod since it became part of the vanilla game
1 Like
If I didn’t make it clear in my post commenting on the Azure, it wins the design award for this round with 32/30 design points, a full 5 points more than the vanguard, entirely due to the top grille… Can I use it in my light campaign pls.
1 Like
AAAAAAAAAAAAAH! quad posing, I know, but his post holds some important information for the upcoming round.
RC5, The round where we go back to sensibleness/build a mid size car with over 50mpg UK. Yes we are building economy cars.
Here are the rules
It Must
Get over 50mpg UK/ 5.65l/100km/ 41.7 US mpg with 95 RON or lower
have 4 or 5 doors
be from 1990-2k
have less than 6 cyls. and that is exclusive so no V6s in here please.
have 3 way cats
cost less than $35k
no quality above 5 (unless building a sim. hybrid then you have to do quality 15 for exhaust and fuel system to get accurate to life if it was a hybrid economy)
It can
have a wheelbase from 2.25-2.65m
have a turbo
simulate being a hybrid
have any engine size from 1.3 to 2.2l
be FWD and RWD but no AWD
You Must
Naming- the same for last rounds but with a 5
Car- RC5-Username
Trim- Brand+Model
Family- RC5-Username
Variant- Engine designation
submit to me through DMs and if you do not see your username on the day I say whose I have then you must resend the file.
Scoring- The same as the first round but doubling economy and this time the price, if it can be, will be doubled, also emissions are subtracted from the initial score so keep them down.
1 Like
Count me in - anyway, 50 mpg (UK) is equal to around 5.65 L/100km, which is a challenging target to meet in the 90s, well before direct injection becomes available (hence my decision to give my putative late-90s entry VVT, VVL, and a turbo, along with plenty of quality points on all engine components, but not more than the rules allow). And just because we’re building economy cars doesn’t mean they can’t be fun to drive.
Also, what fuel types are required for this round? And which drivetrain configurations (front, rear, or all-wheel drive) are allowed?
Edit: Is there also a minimum safety requirement as well? Especially after seeing the lack of safety systems on what @stensen is considering for this round.
When you say costs less than $35K, is that overall build cost or is that the market tab estimated?
No worries, can happily accept a design flaw in the judging criteria… And congrats again to Mr. Doom on his win!
i entered not to win. only to take part of it. im so happy
same engine, different body.
im kinda torn here. this one is a lot faster (nearly 137 km/h compared to 135ish). however, it severly lacks in high speed cornering! also, crippled people seem to hit reputation a lot more than dead people.
1 Like
Wow is everyone aiming for fun driving cars?I’m building a pretty standard but practical MPV
The 1998 AVD EC18 was no ordinary small hatchback; independent multi-link rear suspension and partial aluminum construction, combined with active cooling and a highly efficient yet powerful turbo four driving the front wheels, ensured that it was on the cutting edge of contemporary mass-market motoring, especially in terms of engineering, ride, handling, and performance.
Yet for all its innovation, it remained affordable, and thanks to good rustproofing, many examples still survive today. They aren’t too hard to find, to be honest.
This vehicle would evolve over time, but the original EC18 remains a testament to the ingenuity of the people who designed and built it.
1 Like
I will be using a car from my own profile, one that I made way before I started the RCs, a simulated hybrid, meant to rival the Toyota Prius I called the Vanguard Prophecy
For the year 2000, Canada Motors unveiled its first hybrid model: the Nanaimo.
The Nanaimo EL was the entry level model and had an astonishing fuel economy for its price. The hybrid batteries were under the rear seat and trunk, still allowing for plenty of cargo space.
As usual, Canada Motors’ reputation for safety and reliability made its way into this car. What was different, however, was the lack of AWD. The reason behind this was that there was not enough room for the AWD system with the hybrid components and that it would also reduce the efficiency of the Nanaimo.
1 Like
FF drivetrain up front, electric motors in rear, boom, problem solved 
BUt we unfortunately don’t have those functions yet 
+15 fuel system and exhaust is what simulates the hybrid, and AWD isn’t available, so I came up with a reason that fits the company lore.
1 Like