@4LGE How do you make those tail lights, they are amaze.
Koolkei started with the km/L figure, so his fuel economy is in the 8s.
Haha if I had submitted the original concept of Ouroboros instead for shits and giggles… But nah. This round demands nothing less that the biggest penis compensator possible 
2 Likes
Only managed 21.6 MPG (US) but I feel the Taipan has it where it counts. She may be heavy, but she’s not slow.
@CamKerman They’re the not-Peugeot tail lights, stretched in length a bit, with a white square T (tail light) to cover the yellow area, and a body color strip (vents) to cut into it, while the top red part is just continued with red square stripes (from the vent area).
Hope that helps 
Also, @koolkei I’m not that good in the economy department with this one, with about 12 l/100km or 19.6 US MPG. At least it’s just premium it needs 
well TIL i can’t read 
1 Like
CSR26 Reviews and Results, Part 1
My search for a supercar was a long time in the making, and it was now about to begin in earnest. Sitting on the opposite side of the parking lot were some of the fastest and most exclusive cars I had seen thus far – or at least they claimed to be. Especially considering my demanding requirements, choosing a winner was no easy task. The reviews for each car are arranged in the order in which I received them. So, without further ado, here they are…
@Madrias - Storm Taipan GTXR
The first car I tested was the Storm Taipan GTXR, a low and long front-engined coupe finished in a sumptuous dark red and boasting full carbon fiber construction. While the shape is mostly quite attractive, even with a biplane active rear wing attached, the frontal aspect has too many vents and intakes for my liking. There’s a reason why Storm provided so much cooling capacity, though. Under the hood is an 8.2-liter 48-valve twin-turbo direct-injected V12 developing an insane 1,557 bhp and 1,097 ft-lb, distributed evenly across both axles thanks to the Taipan’s AWD system. It can run on premium fuel, and yet despite its immense power and 9000-rpm redline remains very reliable, thanks to copious use of positive quality sliders across the board. However, while the 0.3 points of unused octane are a very minor problem, a bigger issue is the brutal power delivery, since the turbos don’t deliver full boost until 3900 rpm, at which point the torque curve scales a cliff face and the whole world goes into reverse very quickly. Would it be too much for me? I had to find out.
On to the rest of the car, and its drivetrain is very sophisticated, with a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox, and electronically controlled differentials. Yet even this is insufficient to stop the immense amount of wheelspin this car experiences from a standing start, despite tall gearing. Widening the gear spacing would have helped slightly, though. Another culprit is tire width, or in this case, the lack of it; with just 295 mm-wide rear tires there is simply not enough traction to handle >1500 bhp, even with AWD and a full suite of driving aids. More disturbingly, though, the vented disc brakes, with 6-piston calipers up front and single-piston calipers at the rear, develop slight fade after heavy use, although this is more a symptom of the total absence of brake cooling rather than a criticism of the braking system itself. And even with a sport interior, this car still weighs nearly two metric tons. Still, despite the premium infotainment system, I found myself seeking more comfort, since the wheels were an inch or two too large for my liking, and yet all that didn’t deter me from testing the Taipan on the road.
As I drove it on the road I could not detect a discernible amount of bottoming out, and was reassured by the fact that the suspension (which incorporated active anti-roll bars) had been set up to provide mild understeer. Yet I was forced to exercise restraint much more often than I liked, due to the on/off nature of the turbos after 3900 rpm. On the Automation Test Track, where there were no other motorists to deal with, this was much less of an issue, and I recorded a best time of 1:54.12 as well as a top speed of 253 mph and a 0-60 mph time of just 2.3 seconds. Even so, it’s hard for me not to conclude that the Taipan actually has too much power, and too many vents, for its own good. In fact, it’s enough for me to rule out the Taipan as my first supercar. That’s a shame, especially since it costs $175,000 after markups.
@TR8R - FOA Lime
Compared to the excessively aggressive-looking Taipan, the oddly-named FOA Lime is actually a good-looking car – more conventionally beautiful than the Taipan for sure, especially in its bright green color - with its cab-forward, mid-engined shape, and an assortment of well-placed fixtures that generally complement the car’s shape very well (except for its very undersized rear wing). Unlike the Taipan, it is purely RWD, and its engine sits behind the driver. Speaking of engines, a 4-liter, 60-valve, normally aspirated V12 hides under the rear deck, and in addition to sounding like an F1 car from a quarter-century ago, it develops a mere 484 bhp at 8500 rpm on premium fuel, just 200 revs shy of the limiter – the redline could have been extended to 9000 or even 10000 rpm without losing too much reliability, especially since a lot of quality points were used everywhere but the exhaust system. And yet, despite having less than a third of the previous car’s power output, the Lime, with its lower curb weight of 1.376 metric tons, should easily make the most of its relatively small engine.
I assumed as much after finding out that, like the Taipan, the Lime had a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox (albeit one with somewhat tall gearing) and an electronic LSD, but before I drove it on the road, a quick look at the wheel and tire sizes soon left me quite deflated. The front and rear tires were just 185mm and 255mm wide, respectively, which meant that despite the minimal body roll, it understeered a lot more than I liked, and combined with the rear-biased brakes (3-piston calipers and 270mm vented discs up front, single-piston calipers and 310mm vented discs at the rear, with more aggressive brake pads on the latter), I was forced to conclude that the high drivability rating of 63.9 was deceptive, and not in a good way. The oversized 24-inch wheels did not help ride comfort either, but at least it had a handmade interior (albeit with no quality points) and luxury infotainment, complete with a heads-up-display.
Still, despite being burdened with luxury trimmings, the Lime managed a lap time of 2:04.75 around the Test Track, and thanks to its light weight could reach well over 225 mph, as well as a 0-60 mph time of 3.1 seconds. Yet even with sophisticated active suspension, no amount of tuning could compensate sufficiently for the overly narrow tires or the awkward brake setup to earn it a place in my shortlist. Overall, the Lime showed plenty of on-paper promise, and yet somehow managed to under-deliver, especially since it costs $179700, which is not much less than my budget allows.
@Matti - Schack GT780
This is the second front-engined car I drove that day, and it had a menacing appearance, with its long hood and cab-backward profile; however, I felt that the warm gray exterior color was too dull for a car as prestigious as this. The design of the rear fascia was on point, although the pop-up headlights were at odds with the rest of the car’s styling. Also, this one was even heavier than the Storm, at well over two metric tons. That’s because it had a mixture of steel and aluminum panels on a glued aluminum chassis – if the body panels were all made of aluminum, performance and economy would both have been improved considerably, as I would soon find out.
The 6-liter 48-valve normally aspirated V12 under the Schack’s hood promised much, yet turned out to be a disappointment in practice for a couple reasons. The combination of a very mild cam profile and extremely aggressive VVL profile meant that the power delivery didn’t really excite me until around 6000 rpm – there simply wasn’t enough low-end torque. Also, the RPM limit of 10000 was actually too high for the engine internals, stout as they are, and so the reliability figure of 70.3 was just barely enough for it not to be disqualified. At least it developed 778 horsepower at 9200 rpm, but I was not sure if that alone would prevent the car from making the final cut.
Like the Storm, the Schack is all-wheel drive, although here the torque split is 40/60 front to rear. However, I was relieved to find out that the tires were more than wide enough to cope with the car’s massive power output, while the carbon-ceramic brakes (6 pistons up front and 1 piston at the rear) were clearly more than adequate. The high-quality handmade interior is clearly among the best so far, and a lot of quality points seem to have gone into the luxury infotainment suite as well. Also, the active suspension struck a nice balance between oversteer and understeer, while the downforce undertray and active rear wing kept the car stable even at high speeds.
At the test track I recorded a best time of 2:04.17, and with a top speed of 211 mph the Schack is a very fast car indeed. Yet even though it cost just under $150,000 with markups, I was again disappointed, and not just because of the poor reliability. With partial, rather than full, aluminum panels, it was heavier and slower than I wanted it to be. In fact, there was just enough room in the budget for carbon-fiber panels to be used instead, which would have improved the performance and handling even more. In short, the Schack should have been a great grand tourer, but fell short in too many key areas for me to consider it.
@DeusExMackia - Erin Scarlet X 3.8
Unlike the three cars I had driven so far today, the Scarlet X is much smaller, and, at 1.445 metric tons, is also quite light, thanks to all-aluminum construction. Every aspect of the exterior design, from the overall shape to the placement of the fittings, is top-notch, even in the test car’s subdued silver color. And, like the Lime, it was purely rear-wheel drive. I was anxious to find out what lay beneath the hood of this vehicle.
I popped the hood and found a normally aspirated, 32-valve crossplane V8 engine, but this was no ordinary V8; it was very oversquare, with a displacement of just 3.8 liters. Yet, the cam timing was so aggressive that it cranked out 507 bhp at 9100 rpm – an amazing achievement for such a small engine. The RPM limit of 9700 rpm was also extraordinarily high for an engine of this type. On top of that, the engine was immensely reliable, although it required 98 RON super unleaded, whereas everything I’d previously drove only needed 95 RON premium unleaded.
The Scarlet continues the trend of using a dual-clutch gearbox, although this one has six speeds instead of the usual seven. The lack of a seventh gear, combined with the narrow tires (225mm up front and 255mm at the rear) and short wheelbase all contribute to significant, though manageable wheelspin; quite frankly, this car would have performed better with a seven-speed tranny. I can’t find much wrong to say about the braking system, though, which develops no fade at all even after heavy use due to the large front rotors (350mm wide, to be exact). After all this, I was expecting the car not to be a letdown, but I would soon be proved wrong.
Stepping into the sporty interior of the Scarlet, I realized that its infotainment system was just a standard setup plucked from a family car – lighter than more expensive systems for sure, but not comprehensive or advanced enough for my needs. Ignoring that drawback for a moment, I took it out onto the road and was horrified to hear the suspension bottom out even on the smoothest surfaces, despite the active setup. The narrow front tires didn’t help either, as the car had a clear tendency to understeer. I was clearly shaken after the drive to the test track, where I set a lap time of 2:09 exactly, but I reluctantly concluded that, even without bottoming-out issues, and despite a low purchase price of $107800, this car feels too much like a lightweight sports coupe or track car instead of a bona fide supercar for me to purchase it.
@szafirowy01 - Zavir Volante GT12
This is a very elegantly designed car, highly reminiscent of the Aston Martin One-77, particularly when finished in deep midnight blue. It’s constructed entirely out of carbon fiber, which keeps the weight down to just 1.6 metric tons. The only things that break up the otherwise smooth body profile are the hood scoop and biplane active rear wing. Unsurprisingly, I began to fall in love with this car, especially after I popped open the hood and found a 6.3-liter normally-aspirated V12 developing an astounding 832 bhp on super unleaded and with a 9000-rpm redline. However, like the Schack, the Volante’s engine also has a cam profile which is much milder than its VVL profile, resulting in a flat power delivery until 4000 rpm, at which point the car really starts to gather speed. Reliability is great, but it could have been higher if the conrods were made of titanium instead of forged steel. In all honesty, though, this engine feels like it could last forever, and sounds very good as well, almost enough to make me overlook the somewhat high fuel consumption caused by its 13.5:1 AFR.
The rest of the car doesn’t exactly live up to the high hopes set by the styling, though. The gear spacing on the seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox is too wide, and the rear brake pads are not aggressive enough for my tastes, resulting in some understeer. And although the Volante has a luxury interior, it hasn’t been given enough quality, which is all the more glaring considering the fact that, like the Scarlet, its infotainment system seems to have been taken directly from a mass-market car. In addition, the active suspension has too much negative camber up front and excess positive camber at the rear, which leads to excessive tire wear in the long term.
For the most part, though, the Volante handles very well on the road, and does not bottom out at all even on the roughest surfaces. And at the test track it recorded a best lap of 1:57.89, faster than anything I’d driven up to this point, except for the overpowered Taipan. However, at $155400, this car suffers from under-investment in far too many areas to prevent me from cutting this car sooner than I originally wanted. It’s a crying shame, considering its untapped potential.
@Fayeding_Spray - Soulji AGT
This car reminds me of the Taipan, with its deep red paint and front-engined layout. However, whereas all the previous cars were hardtop coupes, this is the first convertible I have tested this round. The body and chassis setup is almost identical to the Schack, except the AGT has double wishbone suspension at each corner. Styling-wise, it’s minimalistic – too minimalistic, in fact, up front, where the deep trapezoidal grille clashes with the four slit-shaped headlights. Also, the large rear wing seems at odds with such a simple design, but overall, this car will have no trouble standing out from a crowd of mass-market machinery.
The engine compartment houses a 6-liter twin-turbo V12 developing 1000 (metric) horsepower, which seemed nice until I discovered that all of it went to the rear wheels – I was skeptical about whether or not this would be too much for a front-engined car. Also the exhaust, at just 3.75 inches, was too restrictive – an extra inch would have given them more usable power at the top end, where it matters most. The power delivery, however, is disturbingly abrupt – like the Storm, the boost comes in too late, at 4700 rpm, and when it does the torque spike is so huge that it causes lots of wheelspin. The thick profile of the tire sidewalls doesn’t help either. At least there is no brake fade and no problems with engine reliability.
A quick glance inside its cabin revealed a sports interior without an infotainment system. It certainly wasn’t what I was looking for when I set out to buy a supercar, let alone a hypercar. And as with the Scarlet, the AGT’s suspension bottomed out, although not to the same extent as the Erin. Still, I gritted my teeth just to drive this on the road, and after a brutally uncomfortable drive to the test track, I recorded a best time of 2:05.6. Nevertheless, there was just too much wrong with it for me to even consider buying it; not only was the fuel economy slightly less than what I had stipulated, but at $124500 I felt that not enough had been done to make it a viable hypercar, especially since it doesn’t even have any form of in-car entertainment at all.
@HighOctaneLove - Bogliq Coyote GT
Now to one of the more unusual offerings in this test. Resplendent in the brand’s signature color of bright blue, the Coyote is a shooting brake instead of a traditional coupe, although considering the fact that I have another car for more mundane tasks, I’m not sure if the car needs that extra luggage space. It does, however, provide some uniqueness to the lineup of cars I was presented with, although the tiny roof spoiler and even smaller hood-mounted spoiler are at odds with the Coyote’s long-roofed shape. And unusually for a hypercar, it has fiberglass bodywork – very light for sure, but also as cheap-feeling as the steel rims, whereas everything else I’ve tested has alloy or even carbon-fiber wheels.
The engine compartment hides a huge normally aspirated 48-valve V12, displacing 8.1 liters and delivering more power than the Soulji. It requires super unleaded, but once again I am dealing with an extremely mild cam profile combined with a highly aggressive VVL profile, which ensures that the power delivery takes until 4000 rpm to get going, although the 9200-rpm redline seemed to allay that fear. Yet this is also responsible for the somewhat low reliability figure of 75.3 – even its CNC-milled components can’t quite handle that many revs - and the straight-through exhausts, despite their weight savings, are noisier than the reverse-flow units found on everything else I’d driven previously. Nevertheless, it definitely sounds like a naturally-aspirated V12 should.
As I step inside I am greeted with a premium interior and infotainment system, but both are of average quality, and that’s not the only problem. Although the suspension is set up to deliver lively handling, it uses cheap, simple components such as progressive steel springs and conventional monotube dampers; even though they are less maintenance-intensive than more complex designs, I would have preferred a more sophisticated setup. Moreover, the excessively long gear spacing hinders straight-line acceleration, which is a pity considering that the Coyote uses a six-speed manual transmission – a rare sight in this day and age.
On the road, that gearbox made it more fun to drive than I expected it to be, and at 9.47 L/100km on the combined cycle, it was surprisingly economical for a 1000-horsepower shooting brake. Yet despite a best time of 1:59.98 at the test track, I am bitterly disappointed by the rampant cost-cutting this vehicle has suffered from – at $105,800 it’s obvious that more money could (and should) have been spent to make it appeal more to my tastes. It’s different, for sure, but certainly no better than the opposition.
@BobLobLaw - Ventnor Bambino
This is only the second mid-engined supercar I have tested this round so far, and it clearly has a minimalist feel to its exterior design, with small but well-placed intakes and vents, combined with slim headlight and taillight clusters; the fixtures were also finished to a very high standard. It even has a glass roof section for improved visibility, although the dark silver exterior color seems a bit too sober for my tastes. Unusually, it has a traditional steel space frame underneath its carbon-fiber bodywork, but its pushrod-actuated suspension allows for the fitment of wider rear tires. I couldn’t help but wonder, though, if this car would have been any better if it had a carbon-fiber tub to match its composite panels, but I’ll get to that point later.
Opening the rear deck reveals an unusual engine for a supercar: a 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 delivering just 438 horsepower to the rear wheels. It’s not the most prestigious engine, and this is certainly the least powerful car yet, but the turbo spools up relatively early, at just 3400 rpm. The wide power band and flat torque curve make this engine more flexible than I expected. However, the 8200-rpm redline puts the engine’s forged steel conrods under some strain, reducing reliability slightly, but not to the point of causing too much concern. It’s not the most efficient or tuneful engine around either, but at least it only requires premium unleaded.
Like most of the cars I was presented with this round, the romantically-named Bambino uses a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. The gearing is long, but not too long, and the moderately spaced gears suit this car very well. In addition, the tires are the same size at both axles, being 275mm-wide items wrapped around carbon-fiber wheels, although there is clearly room for wider rear tires and/or some rim offset. The brakes are two-piston carbon-ceramic discs (325mm at the front, 265mm at the rear), providing consistently good performance in all conditions with not even the slightest trace of fade.
The Bambino’s interior reeks of quality, incorporating a HUD-based infotainment system and well-engineered safety features. The suspension is just as sophisticated, since it incorporates an active setup. However, during the road drive it tended to oversteer a bit, although it didn’t render the car undrivable. Nevertheless, the lack of body roll, combined with smooth, comfortable ride reassured me on the drive to the test track, where I set a best lap of 2:08.46. Not the fastest, but surprisingly, despite a top speed of 203.66 mph, not the slowest either, as I would find out. Yet the fast-spooling turbo, combined with wide tires and relative lack of power, make the Bambino’s performance easily exploitable on road and track despite those oversteer issues.
Overall, the Bambino is a surprisingly appealing supercar, and one that, makes the most of its relatively low power output, as well as being a very comfortable daily driver. At $133,800, it’s also well under budget. Interestingly, even if the Bambino had a carbon-fiber monocoque instead of a steel space frame, it would still have been under budget, but only just – the carbon tub would have increased the Bambino’s price to $179,000. As it is, despite a few idiosyncrasies and a lack of power, this car, against all the odds, will still be on my shortlist at the very least – I am definitely considering buying one of these. Who would’ve thought it?
@lordvader1 - GT1760
This is another mid-engined supercar, and unlike the last two such cars here, it looks like a GT1 racer from the mid-late ‘90s, long tail and all, which is nice. The front is adorned with three pairs of dive planes and a full-width rear wing is provided. In addition, the shape and placement of the vents and air intakes make it look and feel even more like a racer, especially since it’s painted in a blindingly bright pearlescent white. At any rate, this vehicle promises a lot with its racy looks, but I am not sure if it will live up to my high expectations.
Lifting the rear clamshell reveals a 6.0-liter normally-aspirated V12 developing 770 horsepower at 8600 rpm thanks to an extremely aggressive VVL profile, although the mild cam profile creates a mild torque hole between 3500 and 5000 rpm. It’s a highly oversquare engine, which explains the high redline. It even runs on premium fuel, although the 13.6:1 AFR reduces efficiency somewhat. Still, it’s not only reliable, but very operatic, and certainly an antidote to the prevalence of the small-displacement four- and six-cylinder turbo engines that dominate today’s automotive landscape.
Although the GT1760 is yet another of those cars which uses a dual-clutch gearbox, this one doesn’t have the excessively long gearing or unnecessarily wide gear spacing found in some of the other cars I tested. And like the Ventnor, it also has carbon-fiber wheels, albeit some rather small ones at just 18 inches across. Bizarrely, though, it uses low-rolling-resistance tires, and they clearly don’t suit the car – a set of high-performance tires would have been much more appropriate considering the immense power output. Moreover, although it had 3-piston carbon-ceramic brakes at each corner, the front brakes were actually smaller than the ones at the rear, limiting stability under braking.
Most worryingly of all, the active suspension not only bottomed out at times, but also was improperly configured, with positive front camber and very high negative rear camber, leading to tricky handling characteristics and rapid tire wear, although at least the car had a full luxury interior and infotainment suite, which should’ve been enough to keep the occupants comfortable if the suspension didn’t bottom out at all. However, the lack of tire grip, combined with the challenging handling, made setting a lap time almost as taxing as the drive to the track, and yet it did no better than a 2:05.4 from a standing start. Not even the top speed of 223 mph or the 0-60 time of 2.8 seconds could compensate for this car’s shortcomings, especially at $177600, and the high fuel consumption of 12.62 L/100 km did not help either. So unfortunately I have to pass up this car, and move on to the next one.
@thecarlover - Solo Lightning SM V8
I must admit that the Lightning is one of the best-looking hypercars I have ever seen. It certainly reminds me of an Acura NSX (the hybrid one) from the front, but otherwise it more closely resembles a McLaren P1, especially in its bright orange exterior paint. Unusually, though, its engine is mounted transversely, and drives all four wheels instead of just the rears. In fact, AWD wouldn’t be possible if the engine were mounted longitudinally. However, the Lightning SM V8 is built like a hypercar should – pushrod-actuated suspension at each corner and with full carbon-fiber construction of the highest quality, although the fixtures seem to have been assembled and installed on the cheap by comparison. That’s not enough of a concern to worry me, though, since I have other things to complain about, but I’ll get to that later.
Lurking within the engine bay is a 5.5-liter twin-turbocharged flat-crank V8 delivering nearly 1000 horsepower, yet the turbo doesn’t start spooling until after 3500 rpm and the full 1.1 bar of boost doesn’t arrive for another 1400 rpm. Combined with the 8300-rpm redline, this results in a narrow power band and some reliability issues with the internals. With a 13.5:1 AFR it’s not the most economical engine either, but at least it sounds unlike any other engine I’ve heard so far in this test. And what about the rest of the car?
Well, for starters, the Lightning is AWD, with a torque split of 25/75 front-to-rear. However, this distribution, when combined with the closely-spaced gears, produces considerable wheelspin, even with extremely wide tires (325mm up front and 375mm at the rear). The Lightning also has carbon-ceramic brakes, but like the previous car, the front discs are smaller than the rears. Oddly, it has a flat floor instead of a downforce undertray, and this leads to considerable lift at high speeds. Even more incongruously, the premium interior is of average quality, while the infotainment system, much like the one in the Erin, is too simple and downmarket for my tastes.
A quick glance at the active suspension reveals that it has been configured for track work, with stiff anti-roll bars and large amounts of negative camber at both ends, leading to a rock-hard ride. This, combined with the narrow powerband, made me think twice about unleashing its full performance potential on the road. The test track was a different story: the Lightning set a best time of 1:55.37, which is the fastest one so far, and combined with the top speed of well over 250 mph and a 0-60 time of 2.3 seconds, it’s an astounding performance package. Nevertheless, despite its striking performance and styling, this car just barely makes it onto my shortlist, especially since it costs $174,500. It’s clearly a device for setting the fastest possible lap times on any track, but the stiff ride makes it feel compromised on the road, though not to the point that it has lost too much daily usability. As such, I might actually want to come back to this car later.
9 Likes
That’s the Storm way. And, do keep in mind, we did detune the car. Normally, a factory-stock Taipan ships with 2002 horsepower.
But, it is designed as a track-bred hypercar. Some adjustments had to be made to fit reliability and cost requirements, others were made because I wanted to keep true to what the car originally had.
And I’m very proud of this:
I tried to make the lap-time king out of the car.
3 Likes
is it possible to add some basic photos please 
4 Likes
I can only add photos if there are no issues with the body used by an entry.
@szafirowy01 The real reason your entry was cut so soon was because its infotainment system was a mismatch with the luxury interior, and neither were of high enough quality for my tastes. Also, in all fairness, this is the first CSR round I’ve ever hosted, and if I ever get the chance to host another round of this contest, I should have improved my ability to write reviews for each entrant by then. I was aiming to give comprehensive descriptions for each entry this round.
2 Likes
Hmm… I thought that my car would be crossed out for being too much of a GT instead of a supercar. But it was crossed out for being too much of a supercar instead of a GT. We clearly have completely different definitions of a supercar, or you were looking for a super-GT, not a supercar. But I’m glad that you liked the styling (which, considering that it’s still not perfect for me, I’m also proud of) and the engine, which in fact is way better than the car itself And I probably overlooked the lack of the titanium conrods or considered them too expensive, as when I later redesigned the engine I was surprised that they are not there. My bad.
Some criticism about the form of the reviews - too much complaints for this kind of cars from someone who never driven one. It seems like the buyer had unreal expectations And you criticise things that a normal buyer should have no idea about - AFR, carbon fiber vs aluminium, pad type and so on. It seems awkward and unrealistic.
But there’s also a plus for you for releasing the reviews so quickly
5 Likes
Than do it 
5 Likes
yet another time i fucked up with the suspension i need a third party suspension tuner
@strop could you help
Damn! Thanks for the feedback on the wheel and suspension setup, I’ll be making some adjustments to the Scarlet.
Forgot to include my approach when i submitted my car. It’s simply “the supercar for you and your future grandson” basically, a supercar that is made to last (super) long.
Not just the experience of the car when you test drive it or when you jus bought it. But also the experience 10-15 years down the road
CSR26 Reviews And Results, Part 2
After reviewing the first 10 cars that had been sent to me, it was obvious that building a hypercar capable of fulfilling all of my requirements was more difficult than it first seemed. But my task of reviewing the entries was not over by a long shot. So here are the reviews for the next 10 cars submitted in this round.
@CamKerman - Shimatsu Aioi 117
Unfortunately, I can’t track-test this car due to technical issues regarding the body it uses, so I have to rely on the screenshots and blurb found in the post regarding this entry. From the information I do have, however, it clearly shows some promise, with an aggressive front fascia and a rear end guaranteed to make others regret that they ever bothered trying to out-drag it in a straight line. And the Black Satin paintwork is actually an extremely dark maroon. However, the overall shape is poorly proportioned; the Aioi’s egg-shaped profile, while unique, seems at odds with the elegant nature of such a prestigious front-engined GT car as this one.
With an 8-liter V12 developing 980 bhp, the Aioi is definitely fast in a straight line; it can reach 223.1 mph and blast from 0 to 60 in just 2.5 seconds. Yet the drivability score of 63.4 is not much lower than the sportiness score of 66.9, which is quite remarkable. Although it has a HUD-based infotainment system, such advanced technology seems out of place in a car which has a mere premium interior. This pales into insignificance, though, when I discovered that the average reliability figure was 70.0 exactly – right on the minimum threshold, and most likely a symptom of insufficient cooling and/or an overly high redline. Sadly, and surprisingly, that problem, combined with the egg-shaped styling, is enough for me to reject this vehicle – no amount of affordability can make up for severe acute and/or chronic reliability issues. My dream car should not break down when I least expect it to, and the Aioi is certainly not that kind of car. It does not look enough like a real hypercar either.
@nialloftara - Centauri Buffalo GTS
As I walk to the Buffalo I am presented with yet another front-engined beast with lots of intakes and vents up front, and a huge rear wing that turns out to be too boxy and square for the car’s curvaceous shape. It’s not helped by the dull gray exterior color, which clashes with the overabundance of fixtures. But with carbon fiber panels over a glued aluminum bodyshell, it should be light enough to perform well. Using more vents than is necessary doesn’t always work, though, and it’s not the case here.
Casting aside my feelings about the styling, I peered under the hood and found a highly undersquare 9-liter normally aspirated V12 delivering 768 bhp on premium fuel. It only revs to 7500 rpm (just 400 revs after the power peak), and for good reason: the reinforced CNC-milled internals, robust as they are, would be severely stressed if the engine revved any higher. Nonetheless, this is still a highly reliable engine, and one which sounds menacing due to its immense capacity. However, although it has VVL, the cam profile is so mild that it actually compromises economy, chiefly by preventing the compression ratio from being increased. Why anyone would install this system only to configure it so conservatively that the engine is poorly optimized is beyond me.
The drivetrain configuration also leaves me somewhat confused. The Buffalo is all-wheel drive and has a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox, but the extremely tall gearing and closely-spaced gears seem mismatched for this vehicle. Worse, the torque split is front-biased, with a 55/45 distribution front-to-back, whereas it should be the other way around; as it is, I complained of mild understeer and moderate wheelspin while I drove the Buffalo on the road. Even so, with 305-mm wide tires at each corner, I never had a shortage of grip, and the active anti-roll bars kept body roll to a minimum (although the standard fixed-rate springs compromise comfort slightly), although there would have been more if the wheel diameter was increased – 18-inch wheels seem inadequate and undersized in a car of this kind. At least the cast-iron disc brakes are up to the task of hauling this two-ton beast to a stop, but there is clearly too much unused engine cooling capacity, which limits this car’s top speed. And the premium infotainment system doesn’t quite match the Buffalo’s luxury interior.
Putting my reservations aside for a while, I decided to test the Buffalo. I found out that it could reach a top speed of 220 mph and sprint from 0 to 60 in just 2.8 seconds, as well as recording a lap time of 2:02.13 at the test track - all commensurate with the asking price of $171,300. But despite a fuel economy figure of 8.87 L/100 km, it still wasn’t enough to make me buy this car. It simply has too many unnecessary vents for my liking. That’s a shame, for I was expecting the Buffalo to be much more elegantly styled to match its potent powertrain.
@findRED19 - VMW Blue Jay GTZ
I don’t know what to make of this metallic blue fastback. It looks like a vintage muscle car which had been modified for use in a Fast and Furious movie, and the overall look screams “boy racer”, which is definitely not what I want from a hypercar. And although it has full carbon-fiber construction, the solid rear axle is just too crude for the amount of power this car possesses, especially considering that it is rear-wheel drive.
Speaking of power, under the hood is a 7.5-liter, normally-aspirated, overhead-valve V8 capable of cranking out 658 horsepower at 7200 rpm on super unleaded. However, the forged internals suffer some stress near the 7800-rpm redline, and the aggressive cam profile hurts economy as much as the 14.2:1 AFR. At least it sounds angry and deep, which is totally unlike anything I have tested so far. In fact, it’s almost too loud, since the exhaust system has only one muffler (and a reverse-flow unit, no less), which makes the Blue Jay’s appeal as a daily driver somewhat questionable.
Even though the Blue Jay has a six-speed manual gearbox, the very tall gearing ensures that it barely makes it to 60 mph in less than four seconds. It’s made even worse by the automatically locking rear differential, which leads to unpleasant handling characteristics. When you’re in control of a car as potent as this, an electronic LSD is almost mandatory for safely transmitting all that power to the road. And the narrow tires (235mm up front and 265mm at the rear) are also inadequate when faced with the task of coping with so much torque.
At least there is no brake fade, but inside and underneath, I found further evidence of penny-pinching. Hypercars need flat floors or downforce undertrays to improve speed and stability, respectively; the Blue Jay GTZ’s semi-clad undertray may make maintenance easier, but creates more drag and thereby reduces speed. And although it has a luxury interior, both it and the premium infotainment system are only of average quality. The cheap, simple suspension hurts the VMW’s cause even further by reducing comfort to the point that it is barely acceptable. And to add insult to injury, it only managed a 2:05.94 at the test track. In short, at $105,500, this feels more like a poorly-engineered restomod than a hypercar, and definitely not the vehicle that I want to buy with my hard-earned cash.
@TheUltimateD00M - jager
Compared to the other entries I’ve sampled so far, this thing is tiny, and thanks to carbon-fiber construction all around, very light, at just over 1.1 metric tons. Its styling is generally minimalist and the deep purple paint suits the car’s curvaceous shape, although the boxy active rear wing and dated wheel design both clash with this aesthetic style. But immediately I am skeptical about how such a small car can even be considered as a true hypercar, and I only needed to lift the engine cover to know why.
Unusually for a supercar, this car is powered by a 2.1-liter turbocharged straight four developing 422 bhp at 7800 rpm on premium unleaded. However, not only does it not sound like a supercar, it’s also poorly tuned, with high fuel consumption (a by-product of excessive boost, exacerbated by the combination a 13.5:1 AFR and an oversized turbo compressor) and slow throttle response. The power band is also very narrow, since the turbo doesn’t even start to spool up until 4000 rpm, and only blows hardest beyond 5000 rpm. Combined with the 7800-rpm redline, this leaves the car with a very small operating window; extending the rev limiter by another 500 rpm would have yielded more power at the top end, but it would barely improve the car’s drivability.
While the 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox isn’t geared too short or long, and the gear spacing is just about right, the hard-compound, economy-focused tires are a gross mismatch with this car’s sporting aspirations, whereas high-performance summer tires would have been much more appropriate. Worse, I experienced significant brake fade, although that was an inevitable symptom of the absence of brake cooling and not a result of having inadequate braking hardware. The interior and infotainment are both premium items for sure, but since both were of merely average quality, I wasn’t too keen on driving it.
After some hesitation, I finally did so, albeit begrudgingly, and I soon discovered that the comfort-oriented active suspension was at odds with this car’s positioning as a lightweight sports car. It still handled decently, though, despite inappropriate tires, but did no better than 2:09.88 at the test track, and took 3.8 seconds to go from 0 to 60, slower than anything else thus far except for the Blue Jay. Not even the low cost ($92700 with markups) and excellent fuel economy (8.41L/100km) could save this car from being dismissed for actually being too cheap.
@NormanVauxhall - Gushinken K-11
This is the second small, big-winged, purple, curvaceous car I tested today, although unlike the Jager, this is front-engined and AWD. It looks menacing, for sure, but on the other hand it’s not the prettiest car around; the rectangular headlights and vents, along with the thick carbon-fiber wheels and angular rear wing, don’t seem to fit the car’s diminutive profile very well. Again, I am left to ponder in disbelief as to how any company could turn a small, lightweight coupe into a supercar or even a hypercar. But would this be another example of a manufacturer trying to make bricks without straw by turning a light sports car (and one with carbon-fiber panels and chassis) into a hypercar? I had to take a closer look at its mechanicals to find out.
After the disappointment of the previous car, this feels more like it. The engine is an undersquare 3.9-liter normally aspirated 60-valve V12 with a 10,000-rpm redline. However, such a high RPM limit places considerable strain on the engine’s internals, thereby reducing reliability somewhat. Nevertheless, with just over 500 horsepower on tap, it is a very potent engine, and one which not only requires premium fuel but has a very linear power delivery. All very well, but unfortunately this engine has race-spec exhaust headers, which are not only noisier than long tubular headers, but are impossible to mass-produce, and hence difficult to source a replacement for in case of failure.
Even taking that into account, this car falls short in other areas as well. The open rear diff and six-speed dual-clutch gearbox are woefully under-equipped for the sheer amount of power this car has; an electronic LSD and extra gear ratio would have made it far easier and more fun to drive. With 235mm wide tires at each corner, there is also clearly not enough rubber on the road for such a light, powerful car. In addition, there is some brake fade from the carbon-ceramic brakes, although this could be fixed by adding some brake cooling airflow. And while it has a hand-made interior with a luxury infotainment suite, they are of average quality, and add too much weight to a lightweight sports car such as this one. At least the suspension, which incorporates progressive springs and active anti-roll bars, provides a high level of comfort, but with body roll greater than 5 degrees, hard cornering feels more unnerving in this car than anything else so far.
After driving it on the road, I was wondering if there really was no point in turning a small and light sports car into a supercar or even a hypercar, so I tested it on the Automation Test Track in an attempt to (dis)prove this. During the test, I managed a top speed of 204.16 mph, a 0-60 time of 2.8 seconds, and a lap time of 2:02.71. Ultimately, though, I had to reject this car because, once again, despite the low post-markup price of $105,800 and fuel consumption of 10.44 L/100 km, it felt too much like an overpowered lightweight sports car for my tastes. Frustration was now starting to creep in…
@DoctorNarfy - Nickel MJ600
I had sampled 15 cars so far, but much to my disappointment, many of them fell short in one way or another to the point that I had to cut them from my shortlist. Perhaps the next car will change that. The Nickel MJ600 is an elegant front-engined, rear-drive grand tourer with pushrod-actuated rear suspension, a glued aluminum monocoque and carbon-fiber bodywork. It looks stunning from any angle, especially in the deep turquoise blue favored by Shromet. However, I also wanted to know if the driving experience could live up to the looks. I had to look under the hood before that could happen though.
The Nickel is powered by an undersquare, 6.1 liter, 32-valve twin-turbo cross-plane V8, but unusually it is a single overhead cam design, although it still makes 755 bhp on super unleaded. A DOHC version of this engine would be even more powerful still (as well as being more economical), and not much more expensive considering my vast budget. Also, the first cam profile on this engine is as mild as it can get; by increasing the first cam profile, I could have traded some fuel economy for extra midrange torque. Speaking of which, there is certainly plenty of it, since the turbos spool up nice and early at just past 3000 rpm. But this engine redlines at just 7000 rpm, which is earlier than anything else I’ve tested previously, and the standard intake is too restrictive for this application. In addition, the throttle response is slower than expected for a supercar, but that was the least of my worries after I listened to its exhaust note, which really stirred my soul despite the twin turbos.
Inside, I was greeted with a hand-made interior with an infotainment system of the highest possible quality. I also discovered a gated manual shifter for the seven-speed gearbox – a definite nod to days gone by. However, the gearing is so tall, and the individual gears so widely spaced, that seventh gear feels more like an overdrive gear, although this is less of a concern in a GT car such as this one. A bigger concern are the tires; the ones at the front, being a mere 245 millimeters wide, don’t provide enough front-end grip, leading to considerable understeer at the limit. The 20-inch five-spoke carbon-fiber rims certainly look the part, though, while the brakes (420mm across front and rear, with 4-piston calipers up front and 1-piston calipers at the back) easily resist fade, despite comfort-oriented pads.
On the road, I found the Nickel to be very smooth and relaxing to drive, thanks to its comfort-oriented active suspension, but given that I was looking for a supercar, the understeer and weight left me searching for something more exciting than this. More worryingly, it has plenty of cooling capacity, but not enough of it was used, leading to overheating issues after a while. In other words, the engine was under-cooled even though it shouldn’t have been, thus explaining the low reliability figure of just over 67 – well below my minimum requirement of 70.
Despite this, the car continued to run faultlessly on the road, and managed a best time of 2:07.06 at the test track. However, its 0-60 time of 4.1 seconds is slower than I’d expected from a supercar, although its top speed of 223 mph certainly isn’t. Overall, even without cooling issues, at $174,500 the Nickel feels too much like a grand tourer rather than an actual supercar, and just isn’t thrilling enough for my tastes; the subpar reliability turned out to be the last nail in the coffin. I was now wondering if I really was better off buying a used supercar, but I didn’t want to do that just yet, and so I reluctantly moved on to the next car in the lineup.
@DracoAutomations - DAC-RTG
This is quite a different car from the others I’ve tested; it’s a deep purple, rear-engined, rear-wheel-drive coupe with great proportions and an intimidating front fascia. Somehow, it reminds me of a classic 911, especially since it has a big whale-tail spoiler at the rear. However, the overall body shape is very dated indeed, and out of step with my expectation that my dream car should look fresh for years to come. Its body and chassis are both made from carbon fiber, although both of these are of average quality, as are the fixtures. Even so, at just 1162.5 kilograms, this car is a very light one indeed. So I went in expecting this to be a stellar performer – only to be brought back to earth by a whole host of avoidable engineering blunders.
Before we get to those, though, let’s talk about the engine. Like the Bambino, this vehicle is powered by a twin-turbo 24-valve V6 (although this one displaces just 3.0 liters) delivering 535 bhp, but sadly, the power delivery is far too lethargic for a supercar. The turbos don’t start spooling up until 4000 rpm, and it takes another 2000 rpm for them to deliver full boost. I later discover that the turbine and compressor are too large to provide the fast-acting thrust I’m used to with modern turbocharged engines. However, this is a reliable engine, and one that not only requires premium fuel but can rev to 9000 rpm with ease.
With a six-speed manual gearbox this car should be great to drive, but the severe turbo lag means that it most definitely isn’t. It’s made even worse by the hard economy tires, which don’t have enough grip for a supercar application. Also, the rear brakes are larger and have more calipers than the front brakes, compromising stability under braking. Inside, I can’t find enough evidence of quality to convince myself to buy this car; most incongruously, the basic infotainment system does not belong in the otherwise premium interior. Moreover, the active suspension, while supposedly configured for sportiness, is actually tuned for understeer, with considerable body roll.
All those factors made the road drive somewhat unpleasant, but I still had the nerve to set a lap time at the test track. The DAC-RTG set a lap time of 2:07.6 and reached a top speed of 201.74 mph. It could also reach 60 mph in just 3.1 seconds, but as a rear-engined car, its weight distribution was the worst out of all the cars I’d tested so far, at 26.5/73.5 front-to-rear, causing some unpleasant handling characteristics. Overall, at just $92,250, this vehicle doesn’t feel enough like a real supercar for me to even consider buying it.
@JohnWaldock - JHW TwoFourtyFive
This is yet another mid-engined supercar, and one whose large size gives it plenty of presence, although the front fascia reminds me too much of an angry wombat for my liking. There isn’t much wrong with the rest of the car’s styling, though, especially the huge active rear wing, and pure white complements the car’s styling very well. However, the TwoFourtyFive uses all-aluminum construction, and this partly explains the two-ton curb weight. With so much heft, I expected plenty of power to compensate for the excess mass…
…and oh boy, this car certainly does, with well over 1000 bhp, but instead of a V8 or V12 in the engine bay, I found a 5-liter twin-turbo V6, and an overbuilt one at that, with quality sliders either fully or nearly maxed out across the board. However, the V6 is way too big for a six-cylinder engine, and not the smoothest one either, although it only requires premium unleaded. It also suffers from an alarmingly large amount of turbo lag, and so I ended up dreading the impending road test.
The TwoFourtyFive is all-wheel-drive, with a 20/80 torque split front to rear, and its 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox has closely-spaced gears that aren’t too tall or short for this application. With enormous tires and brakes, I expected this car not to have much trouble turning or stopping, and it certainly didn’t, despite the comfort-oriented setup for the active suspension. I did, however, find the turbo lag severe enough to make the JHW much less exploitable than I wanted it to be, and not even the high-quality luxury interior and infotainment system could distract me enough to make me forget about the poorly optimized engine.
That said, with so much power, the JHW reached a top speed of 245 mph and, from a standing start, made it to 60 mph in just 2.7 seconds. It also set a lap time of 1:59.16 at the test track. But at $161,100, the TwoFourtyFive feels too much like a pure speed machine for me to consider it, especially with all that turbo lag. The fact that almost all the quality went into the engine makes it even less appealing to me; if those quality points had been spread out evenly across every aspect of the car, instead of being allocated mostly to its engine, this pearlescent white wedge would have made a stronger case for itself.
@nerd - Sofa 7400-TT
I never expected a third-world supercar to appear in the lineup, yet here it is, and it’s not only bright orange, but very curvaceous. However, the styling seems too bland for a supercar, with soft-edged, generic lines all around. It also has an unusual combination of body and chassis materials. Fiberglass panels on an AHS steel monocoque and a strut-sprung rear end, combined with zero quality on the bodywork and fixtures, leave me feeling that this coupe is built to a price, which is exactly what a supercar should not feel like in any way.
The 7.4-liter, 32-valve twin-turbo, single-overhead-cam also feels like it was built and designed on a tight budget. It lacks variable valve timing, and does not have VVL either. On top of that, it shuns direct injection for multi-port injection, which reduces both economy and performance. Moreover, this engine is not as reliable as some others, and throttle response is very lethargic, since it has just two throttle bodies instead of one for each cylinder. On the other hand, there’s plenty of torque on tap from 2900 rpm, and the power peak of 605 bhp is spread out over 900 rpm – specifically, from 5400 rpm all the way to the 6300-rpm redline.
The rest of the car simply stinks of awfulness. A five-speed manual gearbox with comically long gearing and a viscous LSD certainly aren’t the right choice for this car, and nor are the 17-inch steel rims. Moreover, the solid disc brakes are too weak for something obviously meant to be a supercar, with excessive fade. Worst of all, though, there is not only no positive quality at all, but also negative quality on the drivetrain, brakes, interior, and infotainment. In fact, the interior had more in common with a used subcompact than a brand-new supercar, with only basic infotainment features. Combined with the suspension being tuned for considerable oversteer, this meant that I could not even bring myself to drive the unfortunately named Sofa on the road or the track. It wasn’t just the worst supercar I had ever tested, it was the worst car, period.
After the Sofa debacle, I stood speechless and boiling with anger, quietly asking myself: Why have too few manufacturers delivered a car worthy of inclusion in my shortlist? It was then that I started to believe that a new supercar or hypercar just wasn’t the right kind of car for me, and that I would have to search the used market instead. But I was determined not to resort to scraping the very bottom of the barrel by doing so, and after some hesitation, I moved on to the next car in the lineup.
@titleguy1 - Kimura Elysios
This is a futuristic-looking car for sure, and one that looks really good in its lustrous metallic bluish violet. From nose to tail, the whole design is so on point, in fact, that I almost could not resist the temptation to take pictures of the Elysios from every key angle. Kimura claims that the Elysios inspired by Grand Prix racing, and as such it features full carbon-fiber construction and pushrod-actuated suspension front and rear. But I was now even less sure than ever that the driving experience would live up to the looks after a string of disappointments, and in an attempt to reassure myself, I peered inside the engine bay.
Immediately I found another reason why Kimura touts the Elysios as being F1-inspired. The engine is a small one, at just 3.0 liters, but it turned out to be a 40-valve flat-crank twin-turbo V8 pumping out 600 horsepower to the rear wheels. The cam profile was as aggressive as possible, and the turbos were quite large, thus giving the engine a Jekyll and Hyde feel – docile below 6000 rpm, but thereafter very aggressive all the way to the 10,500-rpm redline, the highest figure thus far. The ferocious engine note throughout the rev range was just a bonus. It wasn’t the most reliable engine, though, but it was still robust enough for my needs.
The gearing profile was very unusual, with very closely-spaced yet extremely tall gears; however, by reminding myself that such bizarre gearing would make the Kimura feel more like an F1 car, I was able to quickly turn my attention to the wheels and tires. The latter measured 245mm and 325mm wide at the front and rear respectively – more than adequate for a supercar. With carbon-ceramic brakes at each corner, the Elysios stopped on a dime, and there was no trace of fade. Moreover, the active suspension was obviously tuned for sportiness, ensuring a highly exciting driving experience.
Everything it did on the test track – 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, a top speed of 224 mph and a best lap time of 2:00.78 was impressive, though not class-leading. However, the spiky power delivery makes it less suitable as a daily driver than I wanted, forcing me to give this car a pass - just. It’s a shame, considering that the Elysios has a high-quality sports interior with a luxury infotainment system, which most definitely befits a hypercar such as this one. Still, despite seemingly endless frustration, I was determined to test the last few cars in this highly diverse field.
1 Like
So much not true. Even more, at some level more power can make a car slower.
2 Likes
Maybe you had expectations that were too high to begin with? Speaking from experience, you asked for a lot of things, which means you’re going to get compromises. Even I had to deal with that one.
I’m trying to be nice, because I understand it’s your first challenge, but so was my round. I tried to avoid outright calling things awful. I pointed out both the good and the bad, with one exception where I really had to go back and rewrite the review two or three times.
Sometimes what happens is you have to grade on a curve. Otherwise, be prepared to show the world what you can do, or be silenced because you’re expecting greater than you can do as a result.
Edit: Trimmed quote.
4 Likes
I had actually set my expectations slightly too high, so I had to lower them by the time I announce the finalists.
I had a laugh at my car’s review. All the “compromise” can be attributed to making a muscle car into a modern super car.
But quick question @abg7, did you forget to click on the overview tab a couple times to get the correct calculations? (not that it would have changed the review, but my #s are slightly off for sportiness, drivability, and horsepower)
After clicking the overview tab about 3 times:
1 Like