agreed… 1000hp is just not enough… but i went with it anyway.
I was tempted to send in my 2000bhp 500km/h 81 engine reliability (and sufficiently cooled) ultra-car that I’m currently building, but that much power costs a lot of drivability and comfort 
Even with just 1bar boost. Even with a pre-factory estimated cost of under 400k after 200% markup.
1 Like
1000hp… not enough? I’m dead.
The Yajiri puts out a mediocre 590hp, weighs around 3900lbs (1700kg) and costs 100k after the huge 200% markup. It gets 20mpg though! The worst thing is, that’s the only car in the whole Seishido lineup that comes close to what is required.
I’m going to wear some fashionable cement shoes after this.
dude, I know Seishido is known for budget, but the challenge clearly stated there was zero benefit to submitting a car under 225k post markup. Props for sticking to your lore guns though.
I’m not so sure, especially with the tyre restrictions in this challenge. Look forward to seeing what the scoreboard says 
Funnily enough with all the tyre limitations, with enough contact patch and proper balancing, you can still get astoundingly good balance between grip and acceleration and handling with upwards of 1000bhp. I see many entries are getting drivability of over 50 while still pulling sub 3 second 0-100km/h (AWD, naturally) and top speeds upwards of 400km/h, and would surmise many of them are pulling 1.2g on the skidpad. The downside to the high contact patch would be the road noise lowering comfort, but lavish sound insulation in a high tech interior will address that, no differently from all those goddamn bloatmobile luxury SUVs (I’m looking at you, Cayenne).
The trick to balancing the sweet spot of drivability, comfort, acceleration and handling is tyre profile. One thing I notice (and this was something somebody noticed in the When You thread), is that people somehow assume lower profile and bigger wheels is better, when in fact it is not.
2 Likes
That’s exactly my case. Even with the ride height of the SUV I’m getting over 50 drivability. Top speed is limited by the body’s aerodynamics, however. Another car I considered submitting was RWD with over 1000 hp, had a top speed over 400 km/h, but drivability was below 50 and I couldn’t fit the AWD in it without pushing the engine through the hood. So I didn’t submit that. But here’s what that car looks like…
It was a really tough choice between the X-Coupe and the Rhino, but I figured an SUV would stand out more than another GT car. I really hope I made the right decision, because I would love for square sealed beam lights like these to be made (the existing vanilla ones are way too round) that work like the round ones with square frames.
6 Likes
That other potential entry also showed plenty of promise! You should consider showcasing it in the Open Source Thread.
Which I absolutely agree with, however I truly believe you do not need 1000+hp to achieve all these things. One of my cars ticks all the boxes you mention yet is “only” sporting 666hp. So while it may be possible tofully utilise 1000+hp it may not be necessary. I guess Tommy will give us the final answer 
1 Like
I have less than 300hp… Heh… Heh… 
1 Like
I have 1111hp and rwd
900 horsepower, AWD. 1651 KG.
Yes, when I made my advert, two panels I usually put up were intentionally replaced with just the picture that would’ve been taken, instead of picture and stats. Now that it’s so close to the deadline, I’m willing to mention those figures.
Had an engine that was more powerful. Turbos wrecked the drivability.
We heard Mr. Vercetti appreciated reliability, so we decided to give him the epitome of reliability
0-100: 2.7 s
Cornering 250.00 m @ 1,28G
100-0: 29,5 m
6 Likes
I believed that >1000 horsepower was not entirely necessary and thus went for normal aspiration, but stuck with AWD for drivability purposes. However, I was sure that I could obtain enough sportiness with the resulting configuration through clever suspension tuning.
100 reliability lol, that’s putting me to shame it is.
Then again I used complicated parts to get outputs up but also set a cam profile for economy so I still get 19mpg instead of like 8 
100.5 reliablility that is wow
if the engine’s life span is 1.000.000 KM
it could go 1.005.000
1 Like
okay…
100 reliability… how expensive is that piece of gold?
either way. turbos wrecks drivability? hehehehehe. a twin turbo here. 53 drivability. 1000+hp from a 5.1L
yes, i made it stick
oh btw. it’s a 25mpg 1000hp monster sedan. i’ll get some pics after i finish this KSP challenge i’m doing.
2 Likes
Yup, did pretty much the same, threw the best parts, loads of money and some really mild cams on it, not at 19mpg but 15mpg
We REALLY don’t want to disappoint Mr. Vercetti with a car that stops working after a few dents. Hence we performed extensive crash tests at top speed and made sure the engine would still be running after the crash.
yeah mine is more expensive to run than yours…
but at least it’s more efficient and even smoother. 
and hey. it’s actually 23.9 MPG. quite above the average so far. even with 14.0:1 AFR 
#iwantasmugsmiley
1 Like
Well yes, I should probably mention I stuck with NA this time
1 Like