TOP 10, PART 1
Now it is time for the top 10 cars, except for the finalists then, so this is place 4-10. The entries here are actually rather solid, so if you ended up here, you did a good job. Keep in mind that, as I said, the field was both large and even…
#10: CONSTELLATION N312E @oldmanbuick
This car sweeps the floor with the others reliability wise. There does not seem to be any magic about that, other than using tried and true technology with generous quality use in the right places, so not any reliability cheese here. Monocoque, transverse FWD, struts up front and torsion beam in the rear - like tons of other 80s cars. More odd is the somewhat agricultural engine. A 57 hp, 1.3 litre pushrod 3 cylinder. It probably plays a huge part in the low prestige score, and as you could have guessed, it does not do the performance any favour. 0-100 in 17.9 seconds, 80-120 in 13.4 and a 159 km/h top speed. The compression is high at 11.9:1 and it has MPEFI so I guess this was an attempt to squeeze out fuel economy. However, at 7.1 litres per 100 km it is only good - not excellent. At $542.30 it is cheap to service, though, but it is another car that also uses up the whole budget.
It only uses a 4 speed manual, not unusual for the era even if it was falling out of fashion, and with fourth gear as an overdrive the spacing is a bit wide. Brakes (solid disc/drum) seems to be well balanced, but suspension tuning is a bit weird with hard springs, soft dampers and no toe. Also, it uses ball type steering combined with FWD, not impossible, just unusual.
Maybe due to the weird suspension tuning, the comfort is low (probably only having basic cassette does not help), so is the sportiness (only minor stat) while the other minor stat, offroading, is about average. Driveability, however, is decent.
Thanks to the use of corrosion resistant steel, the weather resistance is excellent, and the advanced 80s safety means that safety rating is good (though there are equally good cars only using standard). Practicality wise, it is a tie with the Blackthorn at the top.
Styling wise, i am not a fan of the stubby and blocky proportions, or things like the rather flat rear end. Nothing ugly stands out like a sore thumb though, a rather average entry. Though, it has among the better looking interiors in the challenge, all important details are in place and the looks are elegant.
All in all, it has some top stats, but some of them are falling too much behind for me to consider this as a perfect entry - but it made it to the top ten after all!
#9 - YAMAZAKI PREMIO 1.6 GL @S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
Well, styling wise this is a pure Accord ripoff, which keeps it from getting a top score. It should be said though that it is an almost pixel perfect copy, which I respect since I know how hard it can be to pull off, and it is clean and well made. It just lacks a bit of originality. Also, the interior is missing some detailing, albeit for a “dummy” interior it is a very nice one.
Engineering wise it generally makes sense too. Transverse FWD monocoque is almost the “default” choice for a car like this, and the DW/DW suspension setup just mimics Honda I guess. The engine makes about as much sense as it can, just under 1.6 litres and 81 hp, I must say that many cars here were really a bit underpowered, this one is not. With a 12.3 second time to 100, 8.86 second time 80-120 and 192 km/h top speed, it is one of the quicker cars. It’s an iron/alu 12 valve 4 cylinder, with a 2 barrel carb that still was a choice not out of the question in this era. It is mated to a 5 speed manual with what seems to be well chosen gearing. Unfortunately 8.8 litres per 100 km means that it is thirsty compared to some of the entries too.
Speaking of economy, at $664.80 the service costs are about average, and at $10500 it maxes out the budget. Reliability is good, without being top notch compared to the better entries here. The same could be said about the comfort, but considering that it only uses basic cassette and lacks power steering (both things making sense so this is not criticism), the comfort score is nothing to complain about I guess. Driveability is about average, and I don’t see much to criticize there, so I guess it is only a matter of a well weighted car that is not stats maxed. Maybe the rear brakes (drums, combined with vented discs up front) are a bit overpowered but that seems to be more of a pet peeve I have on my own, than something that affects game stats all that much. Prestige is more than enough to not be ashamed to be seen in the car. The structure uses galvanized steel, so weather resistance should be more than OK. It uses standard 80s safety with no quality, but maybe due to being a decently large car, it scores a bit above average, safety wise, and as with most four door entries, practicality is good.
If sportiness had been weighted higher, this could also have finished higher I guess, since it is above most cars there, but that was mostly a “kudos for not cheesing it away” score, so. Offroad, the other similar score, is not that good, but it should still be able to handle the conditions it would be subjected to, I guess.
So all in all, overall a very good and likeable car, with just some small drawbacks, which was enough to take it to the top ten despite the competition being tough.
#8 - WENTWORTH FALMOUTH 1.5L @Dog959
This could have been an elegant design with some more work, the basics are there, but the sloppiness regarding for example molding and light wrapping really lets it down. However, it should be said that it features an interior with some efforts behind it, with some interesting details and cool aesthetics.
Engineering wise, most choices really makes sense here. Transverse FWD, monocoque, struts up front and STA in the back. Engine an iron/alu 8 valve inline 4, just under 1.5 litres, making 70 hp. Maybe the 2 way cat could be questioned since to me that seems more like a 70s US thing. It has single point injection, and balance shafts makes it run smoothly, that was an advanced feature in the era, but not out of the question. It features a 5 speed manual, with sensible gearing.
As many other entries, it uses ball type steering on a FWD car which is a rather unusual arrangement IRL, but something I decided to not care about all that much. Hydropneumatic suspension is odd too - but the Citroën BX did exist in this segment so I can’t really complain.
Reliability is decent (on par with the Yamazaki). 7.5 litres per 100 km is about average fuel economy among the entries, but servicing at $595.40 a bit cheaper. It uses up the whole budget, but then again, few cars that managed to make it to the top 10 were any price bargains, and that wasn’t a high priority either.
It is among the more comfortable of the cars (courtesy of the hydropneumatic suspension maybe), and the driveability could be seen as “higher mid” I guess, suspension and brake tuning (solid disc/drum) seems to generally make sense. Yes, it is not very sporty but it could handle bad roads well (hydro strikes again I guess). Safety is a little bit over average (no quality standard 80s, so probably mostly other factors playing their part in bumping it up, but weather resistance low (only bare steel even in the structure). Prestige is about average.
Unfortunately it is a bit sluggish. 0-100 takes 14.4 seconds, 80-120 11.6 and it tops out at 158. So, with a little bit more power, better weather resistance and a little bit more work on the styling, this could have scored even higher I guess (but maybe would have needed other sacrifices, so it is a matter of balance I guess), but overall not a bad entry at all.
#7 - ACR 200 LANEA EXECUTIVE @shibusu
To me this starts to feel a bit old fashioned for 1986, and even for 1984 as the model year says, it is more of a circa 1978-82 design to me. That’s of course not unrealistic, but could have been seen as a drawback next to more modern looking cars. Though, albeit not the most exciting, it is an elegant design, with some well done detailwork and body sculpting. It also features among the very best interiors in the challenge with nice detailwork, styling and material choices, the only thing I think is lacking is front seatbelts, but since they aren’t the easiest, I let you slide there.
The engineering is sane. Monocoque, transverse FWD, Strut/STA suspension. 82 hp 1.5 litre iron/alu SOHC inline 4 with single point EFI. Manual 4 speed that isn’t extremely wide in its spacing, but not much of an overdrive in top gear then either. Despite that, 7.2 litres per 100 km could be seen as “high-mid” figures. With 10.9 seconds 0-100, 8.72 seconds 80-120 and a 190 km/h top speed, it is also a decently quick car.
As well as the fuel economy, the other top priority stats (reliability, service costs) could be seen as “high mid”, actually at $599 the service costs even a bit cheaper than so. Comfort is average and driveability actually a bit disappointing - unfortunately I can’t really see why the game gives this car such a sour driveability stat since I don’t see anything that’s really wrong with it, so I guess it is not squeezed out as well as with some of the other cars. Prestige is slightly above average, so is the weather resistance (galvanized structure). It leaves $200 of the budget, that does not give it much of an advantage but it is still not a bad figure here at the top, most cheaper cars were subpar. Safety is about average, practicality good as well as offroad and sportiness.
A very solid entry, that somehow lacks the “bite” to take it all the way to the top.
#6 - BERGHAMMER 3160i @LS_Swapped_Rx-7
Yes, it draws a lot of inspiration from the BMW E30, but it is far from a ripoff, it has managed to take the best bits of that car and still maintain its own personality. Maybe the gas filler door should have been a bit bigger and the wheels not as massive in the wheel wells, that’s just minor gripes though, overall I like it a lot. Interior in all vantablack is mostly to be seen as a dummy for improved photos, though.
Engineering wise, it has a monocoque, rear wheel drive, struts up front and a maybe a little bit questionable double wishbone rear suspension, but well, if you could squeeze it in at the price point, then why not. Engine is an iron/alu SOHC 8 valve inline 4, single point EFI, with tubular header as a maybe questionable part, but I said nothing about them either, so just a minor grip. 80 hp and almost 1.6 litres. It is mated to a 4 speed advanced auto that seems to have sane gearing.
Reliability is not disastrous, just not as top notch as some of the other cars. 8.4 litres per 100 km is on the thirsty side, though, but even advanced autos gives a drawback there, so… At $632.2 the service costs are average, but despite some advanced technology it is actually $100 under the budget. 14.5 seconds to 100, 10.5 seconds 80-120 and 180 km/h top speed, mediocre figures maybe, but should be seen in the light of the auto trans too, I guess.
It is among the most comfortable and prestigious cars, so it is obvious that it is aiming upmarket, driveability could be seen as “high-mid”, but being a bit tail happy at slow speeds, with no toe and Automation generally punishing RWD cars, it is what it is I guess. Suspension tuning seems to be sane, brakes (solid disc/drum) maybe a little bit grippy.
Weather resistance is about average (at least it has a galvanized structure), safety (standard 80s) a little bit above. Practicality decent, as with most 4 door cars. Decent scoring in the minor stats (sportiness/offroad).
All in all, a good and solid entry.
#5 - SEONGU GRAN KANDO 1.3i LX @AndiD
This is hardly the most eye pleasing car in the world - but even if it lacks a bit depth in detailing, it’s unexciting styling is at least realistic - it doesn’t gain ugliness points by things sticking out like a sore thumb. Its barebones interior probably mostly is there to improve exterior shots.
Actually, this is another 1.3 litre, 3 cylinder entry. At 64 hp it gives slightly more power, but it shakes even more, maybe the high compression isn’t of much help to make it less agricultural. With a SOHC 2V layout it is a little bit more modern, though. It is mated to a 5 speed gearbox that really makes use of all the gears to make the car move, not giving it much of an overdrive. Despite that, at 6.2 litres per 100 km, the fuel economy is top notch. It is also quicker than you may think, 13.9 seconds to 100, 11.2 seconds 80-120 and a 175 km/h top speed isn’t among the fastest cars, but still adequate.
The engineering is tried and true for the class. Transverse FWD Monocoque with struts and torsion beam. The reliability is excellent, service cheap at $535.90 and it is $200 under the budget. What suffers is the comfort, maybe mostly because of a harsh engine and manual R&P steering, because suspension tuning seems decent (with a little bit of cheesy weirdness maybe, but still making sense). Brakes (solid disc/drum) are very small and has some sportiness fade, but seems to have sane overall tuning. Driveability is about average. Prestige is decent, as well as safety (standard 80s) and practicality is great. Not so much: the weather resistance of the all steel structure. Offroad is so-so but sportiness actually decent.
A prime example of how to get the most out of “an car” as possible. Nobody is dreaming of it, but it is hard to rule it out….
#4 - WALDERSEE ATTACHE L16V @Texaslav
A nice and rather period correct attempt at a “futuristic” and “sporty” car in this segment from this era that was just in between the period of “the future is a wedge” and “the future is a blob”, that without looking too coupé like or too modern. My personal opinion is that the chrome trim clashes slightly with the futuristic ambitions, though. And of course, it does not come without its drawbacks. Practicality is second lowest in the round.
Generally it has a good looking and well detailed interior. It is let down by some details looking a bit too old, mainly the window cranks and steering wheel, but since there is a rather limited amount of fixtures to choose from they aren’t bad enough to be major letdowns.
The engineering is more or less what could be expected. Monocoque, transverse FWD, strut/STA suspension. A 12 valve iron/alu inline 4 that is rulesmaxed out capacity wise. 85 hp at 5400 RPM, fed through an eco carb but they were still around in 1986. The five speed manual with fifth as an overdrive has sane gearing. At 7.4 litres per 100 km, the fuel economy is about average, but it is absolutely one of the quicker cars, the only one with a sub 10 second 0-100 (9.94), 7.82 seconds 80-120 and a 189 km/h top speed.
Reliability is good, even if some cars were even better, service costs decently low at $580.90. Comfort is a letdown, maybe due to a “sporty” suspension tuning and manual RP steering, driveability slightly over average. Sportiness blows every other entry away though, but that wasn’t that much of an advantage this time. And if the roads are getting a bit rougher, this is not a dream car…. But for someone climbing the company ladder, the prestige rating is the highest of all the cars. With partial alu panels on a corrosion resistant chassis it will probably stay fresh for a long time too…. (even if it smells a bit like a yellow dairy product…)
Safety is kind of a letdown, and I blame the negative quality there, but as the priorities were written, I can see why it was being used. And even if the $10100 pricing is just marginally below budget, it is actually cheap for the car you will get.
This shows that with the right engineering, you don’t need to make a cookie cutter car to score well. Maybe it could have been at the podium if it had sacrificed a bit of the sportiness for comfort.
THE FINALISTS:
@donutsnail
@Elizipeazie
@Mad_Cat & @Tsundere-kun
TO BE CONTINUED…
