The Car Shopping Round (Round 64): Tears in Heaven

There will always be people who decide to go against the regulations for one reason or another, be it not fully understanding the rules or going with the “eh, it’ll do fine enough” approach, and then be unhappy with the result. I recall having a round 0 of SOF competition be an economy run, and a lot of people did not finish that one, even though the rules clearly stated what economy you must achieve with your car. More so a person decided to never enter my competitions ever again because of him failing the economy run, and I also recall him running in the PTTE event afterwards. So I wouldn’t pay much mind to that, but having a very clear set of rules would help for the next time.

P.S: I hosted competition with 5 rules in the technical requirements, actual 5 rules, and people managed to send in cars that broke all 5 of them, so yeah. It’s still not fool proof.

8 Likes

In retrospect, IRS probably was my one true departure from “muscle car”. Though every American manufacturer had either a sports car with it, or had played with prototypes before the start of the muscle car era. GM even had a production car (albeit a shitty one) with IRS by 1960, with the Corvair. Yes, I know, not a muscle car.

The “pony” body was a nod to the AMC SC/Rambler and later Hornet SC360, which were built on their “junior car” body.

As for auto/manual, plenty of muscle cars were made with both. Will my choice of the auto be too big of a gamble? Possibly. I decided to make it a “well optioned” Templar. Hoping the buyer likes it enough.

But remember, folks… there’s frequently 20+ cars per round, and that’s a lot for the host to go through. Does a wildcard occasionally make it to the end? Yeah. Do they do so with regularity? Nope. So if you’re going to push the design envelope on a subjective challenge, just know you’re running the risk of insta-bin.

4 Likes

Guessing it’s a good thing I Never entered what I came up with, Pony>Muscle according to the Automation Market:
1969 Letto Destriero ST (Was trying to go with a Fuel Efficient '69 Dodge Charger R/T, But most likely ended in Failure), Stats as is:


6479cc=395ci
14.27 l/100km=16.5 US MPG
4 Speed Manual
Checking Google, I Came across 1969 Dodge Charger MPG - Actual MPG from 5 1969 Dodge Charger owners
Worst Average MPG Listed is from a V8, Size & Transmission not listed, Average MPG of 8.7, Best of 11.4 over 37 fuel-ups & 4732 Miles Tracked: http://www.fuelly.com/car/dodge/charger/1969/rspcharger/42054
Best is a 3.7L L6 with 3 Speed Manual, 16.7 MPG Average With Last MPG of 14.4 & Best of 25.3 MPG over 46 fuel-ups & 6440 Miles tracked, 59% Highway 41% City: http://www.fuelly.com/car/dodge/charger/1969/cpoiler/201972

If someone wanted to Look at it in detaillordletto21 - CSR56-LordLetto.zip (19.8 KB)

2 Likes

The LLA may have 5 speeds, yet the only car I can think of with the same is the Aston Martin DB6, but that is a premium GT car and the LLA is not. Which, is why I fully agree with your rulings on 5 speeds. The only question I have is, if the LLA Had have had 4 gears (Which I also understand it does not) How would it have done?

You have hit the nail on the head right there. Also, IRS of any kind was not used on many (any?) muscle or pony cars back in the 60s and 70s, and nor were 4-wheel disc brakes.

@LordLetto your entry would have been a tempting wild card… if it didn’t have double wishbones at each corner (which none of the classic real-life muscle cars had).

Hence my decision not to use either of the following in this round for realism’s sake:

Especially because they wouldn’t show up in muscle cars for another few decades.

quite well, actually. it wasn’t the most “wow factor” car, but it was actually very decent. just that 5 speed choice let you down.

also, i was lenient on STA rear ends because of cars like the Corvette, which had that rear end. and i don’t think many went for 4 rotors, which the 'vette also used. but 5-speeds and double wishbones were insta killers.

2 Likes

Results Part 2!!!

so, as Ricky had his paired down short list, he hopped in his daily and went to test out these cars.

(all of these are post test drive thoughts to keep it concise)

BM Piranha.

“great looking and good fun, and that tiny, high revving 238 engine is riotous. but, whilst it has good power, it lacks low-end grunt, and only 2 seats in a car like that is a little short changed for the $12,500 asking price. also, if it does go wrong, that little engine may be quite expensive to fix. a good car, but very peculiar.”

Barracuda FSX

“The engine has plenty of power and torque for a 333, and it handles rather nicely and the breaks feel shockingly good, but i cannot get over the lack of power steering in this beast. It feels like a chore to drive on typical streets. couple that with a lack of a stereo, i just cant see myself getting it, sadly.”

BKOO Cesta S-400

“man, that thing is a total hoot to drive. it’s not the most comfortable or best handling, but the 405 motor has torque for days on end! and at $10,300, it’s a steal!!”
Gasril Hustle

“man, this is a tidy little number. good engine, handles very well, breakes feel nice, and, at $9,800, it’s a bargain. but, i’ve made a huge mistake, this also has a 5-speed. i must’ve missed it in the ad, but it’s another retrofit. shame.”

Solo Harrier 400

“Nice and clean muscle car. pretty easy to drive and that 400 cammer is heaven sent. my only real gripe is it’s not the nicest around the corners, and the rear brakes bite a bit more than i find necessary, but it is otherwise a solid candidate at $12,200”

Burnell Torrente S355

“Superb looking car. Good engine, decent handling, and Mags make it seem like a great choice on the surface. however, the ride is near unbearable and the brakes are like an on/off button. and at $12,500, those things just won’t fly.”

Bogliq Brutus 427

“It looks good, and it’s comfortable, but not much more good can be said, unfortunately. handling is sub par, the car is too heavy, and those 4 disks are unbelievably biting to the point it makes you want to steer clear of the brakes all together. at $12,400, it’s just not the right car.”

Townsend Templar

“Probably the best early '70s car here. comfortable, quick, easy to drive, and great handling. but, again, a lack of power steering makes it somewhat of a chore for low speed driving. and the 3 speed auto stunts that fun factor. at $11,500, it’s good, but too mismatched to get my money.”

Scarab Meteor 342SC

"This car not only looks phenominal, it also drive like a million bucks, too. reasonably comfy, easy to drive, fast, and it handles well. the only complaint is the front brakes are a bit sticky, but that’s it. it’s like a mustang with Corvette running gear, and for $12,000, it’s just everything you could want.

3rd Place: @thecarlover

2nd Place @conan

1st Place @gridghost

congrats to all and thanks to those who entered, Ricky is gonna love his Meteor!

12 Likes

Congratulations to gridghost for nailing the brief perfectly - and proving that sometimes, a cammer in a muscle car works just fine! I was also pleasantly surprised by how well that lime green Cesta ute did. What will CSR57 bring, then? I’m expecting that the next round will have us build and submit something more recent.

Still, it was a fun round, especially with its echoes of CSR51… Can’t wait for the next one!

1 Like

Congrats Gridghost on a well deserved win! :star_struck:

As for my Brutus; what, incidentally, was wrong with it’s handling? Too much understeer on the handling graph or was the driveability score too low? I’m always overdoing the brakes these days but I thought the handling wasn’t too bad… :thinking:

Fun round though, thanks again JohnWaldock on running an interesting CSR, I’m looking forward to what Gridghost has in store for us in CSR57!!! :sunglasses:

1 Like

it was a combination of things. the handling was relativity flat, but the g figures were lower than most, and the drivability was on the lower side.

Interesting that power steering was such a high priority. I would not have thought that. I’ve owned four cars of that era, and not a single one had power steering, not even the auto V8 equipped cars. The first car I ever owned that had it was built in '82. Then again, two of those cars had drum FRONT brakes, so I probably shouldn’t complain too much. :smiley:

Oh well, live and learn. Good challenge, though.

5 Likes

Fair enough, since the poor driveability probably comes from being such a big, heavy tank of a thing! :cowboy_hat_face:

Thanks for the feedback, I gotta stop worrying so much about brake fade, lol :grin:

Haha, with all this talk of 5 speeds being an insta-bin I was like “Maybe the idea of 5 speeds for $9800 was so good he let it pass” :laughing: looks like the Hustle had a little too much hustle for its own good :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

the looks nearly let it slide :smile: but i was rushing through and it just passed me by first time around.

Nice job, @gridghost, well done :+1: And thanks to @JohnWaldock for hosting this.

I have to say I was kinda surprised about the “unbearable ride” of the Torrente - sure, I’ve bumped the spring rates up a bit from normal, but not by all that much.

As for the on/off brakes, yeah, makes immediate sense to me - that’ll teach me not to fit race calipers on street cars :sweat_smile:

Anyway, fun little round.

1 Like

i say “unbearable” because the comfort was the lowest of cars driven, by 4 points or so. so only unbearable in context

1 Like

I do want to say that for future rounds, it is probably best to be a little more specific about what choices might insta-bin a car, especially when the stated rules are quite lenient like this one. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with binning cars for certain preferences; that’s what real shoppers do as well. But real shoppers also won’t ‘accept a car for review’ if they already know it’s not what they are looking for.

Anyway, I just don’t want the fear of being instabinned to cause people to steer away from unique and interesting design choices. It’s totally up to the host of course, but from a personal standpoint, you can probably guess my preference based on CSR50 :slight_smile:

4 Likes

yeah, i get that. but every one followed the rules i set, so i had to bin one way or another :smile:

Yey :slight_smile: First real win, and with a type of car i’m not used to building, at that

So, having got myself one car less, and about $12000 more to spend, and a son in the late 16’s crazy about cars and street culture, you are probably already guessing what I’m in the market for…

CSR 57: Cheap and cheerful

I’m hunting for a pretty cheap (as in $15000 or lower @0%) and cheerful car from the late -90’s to early -00’s. It should be safe, somewhat easy on the eyes, decently economic to own and both easy and fun to drive. It shouldn’t kill the hearing, or my old back, so a cat and a muffler would be good, and the interior and comfort of the car should be decent enough to use it as a daily driver.

In game terms:

  • we are still using the Kee-engine
  • trim should be between -90 and -00
  • any type of body is ok as long as you can get the safety to 40 or above and it's present before -00 (no barth bodys tho)
  • 4 seats, preferably in a coupe style body, but if you can convince me otherwise, feel free :)
  • It shouldn't drink more than 10l/100 km
  • Engine reliability of 50
  • 91 or 95 Oct. only
  • Must have advert with picture and price

    Pointers

  • Styling is important
  • No ET/PU limit, though It should be rather easy to maintain and service so don't go crazy
  • No aftermarket monsters, thank you. I want my son to live

    Naming conventions as per usual (i.e. CSR57-yourname/carname/CSR57-yourname/Enginename)

    Deadline 1st December @ 17:00 GMT

  • 12 Likes

    So…

    1 Like