Thats correct, although a sportiness 10 car wouldn’t score well in the competition as it’s not very fun to drive.
nice reviews man. how i would do the reviews. i get a entry i write a review, and so on so on, at the end of the deadline all entries would have been reviewed
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what it does. The more wheelspin you have, the more drivability you gain with it.
@Strop - Neutrino - 2:00.39
Now we move onto, what seems to be, a budget supercar. Small mid-engined steel body with a aluminum monocoque chassis and pushrod suspension. The aesthetics are very exotic, hence the belief that it’s a supercar, with a very streamlined shape and eye catching design. The only hint that it’s a race car is the small proportions of the lights.
This one is powered by another V6, a very common configuration in this competition, and this one is a 3L. It makes 348hp and 225lb-ft with a very smooth, rising, torque curve. It’s not the most economical engine using 41.7 g/hr. Other than that there’s nothing else that stands out, there’s no strange decisions or bad design choices, it’s just a very well made engine.
There is a 6 speed manual as well as another viscous diff. Tires are very expensive at $750 for a set of these sports compound 235/285s. It produces a large amount of rear downforce which leads to quite a bit of understeer at high speed. At low speed there was slight understeer as well, although that’s usual for a mid engined car.
On track is where this car really shines. Very fast as well as great to drive. And as well as being one of the most fun cars here it’s also perfect in terms of difficulty at 1.00.
The high fuel usage and tire costs mean that this will be too expensive to maintain for us to use in racing.
@Airjordan - Smooth Taco R - 2:06.98
First things first with this car is the name. I don’t know why you would want to drive a Smooth Taco but that’s that. The car itself is a FR coupe made with an aluminum chassis and a fiberglass body and with full double wishbone suspension. It looks quite futuristic with its narrow and sharp fixtures, the only strange aspect of the design is the exhaust that comes out high on the rear tailgate.
Once again, we have a V6 engine, this one being 1.7L, making 179hp and 128lb-ft. It uses a magnesium block so it is a very light engine. It gets very good economy using just 21.4 g/hr on regular fuel. Whereas the previous car had a very smooth torque curve this one is more of rolling hills, although at high rpm it results in a very good powerband with only about a 10hp difference across the top 2000rpm.
With that wide powerband it allows the car to efficiently use a 5 speed manual with very little power drop between gears. Despite being sports compound the tires are still quite cheap at $360 due to the smaller rim size. Once again lift has been negated with lips both front and rear and there’s also slight overcooling of the engine as well as brake airflow.
On track its another very good car to drive, however it’s too easy to make mistakes with a 1.15 difficulty rating.
In the end, it looked promising with low running costs but it doesn’t perform to our standards on track.
@HighOctaneLove - Bogliq Fox 200R - 2:11.89
Now we have another supercar looking car with the Bogliq Fox. It’s fairly simple aesthetics wise, not as eye catching as the Neutrino, however it still looks good. It’s mid engine, as to be expected from this style body, and it uses strut suspension so it won’t have the same grip as the others with double wishbone. It is all aluminum construction as well.
The engine is a 2L flatplane V8, another small piston engine like many of the V6s here. With such small pistons it is actually able to get away with cast crank and conrod without sacrificing much reliability, it is a bit lower than others but still decent. It uses 34.1 g/hr of regular fuel, so about in the middle of the cars here. It uses both race headers and a high flow cat.
There is a 5 speed manual transmission and no LSD as being mid engine it has plenty of grip. The tires are pretty cheap, at just $323, since they’re narrow at 165/205 and made of hard compound. Braking is strange on this vehicle as well. The front brakes don’t have enough force to lock up the front tires and the rear brakes far exceed the rear tires and there isn’t even ABS.
On track it’s fun to drive but also, at 1.15, it’s too difficult to drive. Even with the low grip with small tires and strut suspension it is surprisingly fast around the track.
Overall, it doesn’t perform well enough on track nor is it cheap enough to justify it.
@JohnWaldock - JHW Trophy - 2:09.32
Now we move to a very tiny, lightweight, sports car. It has an aluminum chassis with fiberglass panels and uses double wishbone front suspension and pushrod rear suspension. It looks fairly strange since the fixtures have been smushed into the center of the car, not extending the whole width of the body.
The engine is a 1.5L I3 with VVL. Also, for a lightweight sports car, it strangely uses a cast iron engine. It also uses mechanical injection which means it is unreliable and isn’t as economical as it could, although it still does very well using only 24.4 g/hr, had it used multi-point or direct injection it probably would’ve been the most economical car here. It uses a high flow cat and the exhaust is actually oversized for the engine costing it a couple horsepower.
It has a 6 speed manual as well as an automatic locking differential. The tires are fairly expensive at $490 due to them being sports compound. The brakes are overperforming by quite a large margin, with 4 and 3 pistons, and are also rear biased, although helped by ABS. The engine is undercooled, not something you want in a racecar while there is also a large amount of air redirected to cool the brakes. Its also another car to have a radio inside.
On track it’s the opposite of the previous car, not as fun to drive and also very easy to drive with a .84 difficulty. Also it gets very light at high speeds due to the lift that this body generates.
So, its poor performance on track as well as the high priced tires mean it isn’t the car for us.
@Koolkei - Noire - 2:00.55
Now we have another muscle car styled car, although this one looks much more modern than the one we saw early on in the reviews. It’s made completely out of aluminum and uses double wishbone front and pushrod rear suspension.
The engine is a cast iron 3.5L V8 with VVL. It makes 333hp and 239lb-ft and has a very smooth torque curve due to the VVL. Being that it is a larger engine economy isn’t it’s strong suit using 44 g/hr and that’s made worse by the use of premium fuel.
Onto the rest of the car and we have the common 6 speed manual and viscous LSD although wheelspin is still high. The tires are very expensive since they’re 315s all around and made of sports compound rubber leading to a total cost of $742. Also the braking is poorly set up on this car as well with the front brakes underperforming resulting in a rear bias.
On track it performs very well, one of the more interesting to drive and right at the ideal difficulty rating of 1.00. The wide tires and large engine also mean that it’s one of the fastest cars here.
So, good on track but the tire and fuel costs are far too high, very similar to the Neutrino. It could’ve performed very well had it used a smaller engine and tires.
8 Likes
ah what a shame, I didn’t know how the tyre costs would be calculated so they’re too expensive! I definitely should have used smaller tyres, that doesn’t really penalise your drive or sport scores that much. It’s just my habit to use fat tyres if I want to go fast 
But on the flip side, in racing one typically goes through a few sets each weekend, so the costs would blow out really quickly, so fair enough.
@DARKSHINE5 - DSDR Pacific - 2:00.58
Now another FR coupe. Whereas the previous looked quite futuristic this one just looks…peculiar? I think that’s the best way to describe it. It’s rather strange how the front end of the car points down and the rear of the car looks very busy. It is a full aluminum car with double wishbone front and multilink rear suspension.
The engine is another 6 cylinder however these 6 are inline rather than in a V, and is a 2.8L. It’s another car to use a direct acting OHC and it makes 265hp and 185lb-ft. It is on the low end for reliability as it has a cast crank, a forged version would’ve put it on the same level as many of its competitors. With its size it’s not economical using 44.9 g/hr and it uses the expensive race headers.
It uses a 6 speed manual as well as a geared LSD although it still suffers from high amounts of wheelspin even with semi slick tires. Those tires are 215s all around and are mounted to 16” magnesium rims which means they cost $595, about $90 could’ve been saved if it had used alloys instead. The brake setup is very strange on this car with considerably larger, 70mm, bigger rear brakes than front and the rear brakes are also 2 piston while the front are only 1. The rear brakes also use very “soft” pads as well and to make up for the size and piston difference the fronts are very aggressive. All this results in the front brakes underperforming the tires and the rear brakes outperforming the tires, even with the equipped ABS this could still make the car hard to drive. Once again there is a large amount of understeer at high speed as there is a lot of downforce made by the rear wing while the front gets lift.
On track it’s a very interesting car to drive, although it is difficult at 1.11. If the brakes had been setup better than I believe this could’ve been a contender s it would be more interesting to drive and easier to drive, however thats not what we were given.
So, a poor brake setup ruined what was otherwise a very good car.
Lordvader1 - LVC-apexer - 2:06.32
Next up we have a RR coupe. It looks very basic, very little time or money was spent by the designers, there simply wasn’t much there. It has an aluminum chassis as well as an aluminum body and has double wishbone suspension front and rear.
The engine is a 3L square V6 with VVL making 353hp and 234lb-ft, although it could make 360hp if the redline was raised. Currently the redline is set at 8100rpm but peak power isn’t achieved until 8500. It uses 41.2 g/hr of premium fuel so it isn’t a very efficient engine, mostly due to the rich 13.3:1 AFR.
The redline issue gets even worse with the transmission in the car. It’s a 5 speed manual with large spacing meaning that you lose quite a bit of power on each shift. Theres also a geared LSD although with the engine in the rear it doesn’t really need an LSD at all. The tires are decently cheap at just $371 as it uses hard compound and 195/225 widths as well as steel rims. With the stagger on it there is oversteer when at the limit of grip. The brakes are overperforming both front and rear, it really only needed 1 piston brakes front and rear but instead used 4 piston front and 3 piston rear.
On track its not quite as fun as other cars, however still pretty good, and difficulty is pretty good at 1.05.
In conclusion, had fuel usage was lower and the redline issue was resolved this could be a really good car but unfortunately that’s not the case.
@theultimated00m - apollox - 2:11.5
Next up we have a wedge. The classic shape of ‘70s supercars. Again there wasn’t much thought put into the design of the car with just the basic fixtures present. It continues the trend of being all aluminum and double wishbone suspension.
The engine is a 2.3L I4, a very large piston engine here, that is actually undersquare. I would’ve expected oversquare to allow for higher rpm which is actually a problem with this engine. Like the previous this engine is also restricted by the redline. It currently makes 238hp at 7000rpm and 184lb-ft although it could make up to 255hp at 8400rpm. It uses high flow cats and 25.9 g/hr of super fuel, so although t doesn’y use much fuel it is expensive fuel.
Similar to the previous car the redline problem is made worse by the 5 speed gearbox with long spacing. It also, unnecessarily, uses a geared LSD. The tires cost $596 with large 18” rims and 245/265 width that results in oversteer, once again like the previous car. The brakes aren’t a problem on this car however, the cooling is as it isn’t quite sufficient for the engine.
On track it’s once again very similar to the previous car (did the 2 companies work together or something, these are surprisingly similar) with decent sportiness and a 1.05 difficulty rating.
So, like the last car running costs were too high and track performance didn’t make up for it.
@Dracoautomations - x874 - 2:16.14
Now we move onto a classic lemans styled car. A very aerodynamic and sleek shape with very little design work put into it like the last 2 cars. Under that body it’s also the same as the previous cars.
The engine follows the trend of the previous cars as well. Long stroke means it is restricted by the redline making 254hp and 180lb-ft but it could make 274hp. It also uses race header and high flow cats. Fuel wise it uses 30.1 g/hr, once again, of super quality fuel.
Redline issue is once again made worse by large spacing although this car uses 7 gears instead of 5. It does use a geared LSD as well although it is more helpful here than in the previous cars. Tires cost $397 for the hard compound 185/205 tires on large 18” rims and it oversteers at the limit of grip. The brakes are outperforming the tires by quite a bit once again, and have a slight rear bias. The engine is undercooled again and this car also uses a fully clad undertray to achieve higher speeds.
On track it performs worse than the previous cars. It’s not as interesting to drive and the difficulty is up at 1.15.
Very similar result to the previous 2 cars. Track performance is poor and running costs aren’t great.
Finalists should be out tomorrow, hopefully I can get them out in the morning although I’m not sure. Also sorry this is taking me a bit longer than it’s supposed to but I wasn’t able to get a head start due to homework I had over the weekend.
10 Likes
Yup me and strop have the same car and the same problem. High potential, high speed cars, but also high running cost cars 
welp gg
my life
lowers the redline to make sure that the reliability is over 70 — blah blah its crap it could achieve a better performance blah blah
or this would happened
puts a higher redline to get a bit more horsepower but sacrifice reliability — blah blah the engine isnt reliable
makes 9 liter per 100KM – it isnt fuel efficient
less gears helped the acceleration–its fooking overstretched
there is a lsd diff you dont need — life vests aren’t necessary on a sinking ship but it helps
makes sure you can brake properly with more pistons - the braking is too good 4 me
btw would you like some lube. so you dont f*** me dry, daddy?
4 Likes
hahahaha
it smells like the sea over here…
it reeks of… [smartass]SALT[/smartass]
anyway. well it is a game of compromises.
2 Likes
I really enjoyed seeing that post shift shapes as you edited and added to it
But yes, my downfall was the engine, with too much boosht, thus low drivability, economy, octane rating etc. .
Though, I do find it peculiar that 95RON premium fuel is too high? I don’t even know where I could get 91RON fuel, that stuff is more rare than ultimate 100RON around here! Well, wherever we are
OHH how about an “ECU flash” that reduces boost and might lower octane requirements, better economy, lower redline and also gives better drivability? Though, that sweet 270hp/l 
Can be frustrating when the criteria is subjective, to be sure, but…
If you’re having to do this, then you might want to reconsider your basic engineering choices e.g. my engine achieves peak performance powerband but still has a reliability of 70, and I sunk all of three tech points into it.
AFAIK more pistons really means more bite which can mean easier lock-up if you don’t have ABS, and more sudden brake force if you do.
lol okay. here, 98 octane fuel was only offered starting this year. literally.
and our ‘regular’ fuel has a rating of 88RON. although since it’s getting harder to get it, the government are slowly moving to 90RON fuel, and so is the population. but even then, our fuel is still made on Euro2 standards (whereas europe are already making Euro6 their Standards )
1 Like
where i live there is no 91 octane fuel they only sell 95 or 98
but using less pistons gives less driveability and sportiness
yeah maybe i should have used some tech points or lowered the VVT a bit
Check your braking force such that your disc pads are large enough. Drivability is maximised by having no fade and relative braking force being matched between front and back.
yeah should’ve gone with oversquared engine instead of square.
not to mention that even 8100rpm is already beyond the limit dropping to 8Krpm kicked it back up to 71.9 reliability.
billet crank that you didn’t need (changing to forged literally only changed the weight by .6 kgs), and not the titanium conrod that you DO need (or just reduce the stroke)
holy cow 80 spacing?
the brakes… WAT
you literally have triple the amount of brake force that your car needs…
it’s bottoming out at -4.0%. essentially bottoming out everytime you hit ANYTHING.
and that oversteer. you don’t want a super stiff rear suspension on a rear mounted car.
why are you even using twin tube at 2016?. gas mono-tube literally didn’t change the price 1 bit and gives free stats essentially.
700kg sway bar on the rear… your whole suspension setup is only pronouncing the oversteer characteristic of a rear engined car even more.
the body choice itself already carries a safety penalty
here i tried to tinker with it.
however it seems like it’s just impossible to eliminate that oversteer, so just make it the least amount of oversteer as possible.
Cool-K - CSR25-PIXIE.zip (23.3 KB)
1 Like
so he basically built a car that will kill you?
not quite. he made a car with a 2 tons load capacity in mind for the rear half. but a kei car on the front half.
2 Likes
I also had a go at @lordvader1 's car, sent it to him via PM^^ I tuned the engine to run on 91 RON while still getting 346 hp and improved near-top end torque. The oversteer I couldn’t fix unless I’d use bicycle wheels on the front as such, I went with making the oversteer still drivable and accomplished something like 55 drivability and 57 sportiness with improved cornering with some downforce, and removed bottom-out, and of course changed the brake setup. Ohh, and since the fixtures have flown away, I went for a redesign, too 
Actually, I haven’t checked the price much, but I’m pretty sure it stayed in range.