With AWD mine barely fits a 700cc engine… 
#Presenting the 1996 Baltazar Quark GT 1.8
In true Baltazar fashion, we took a standard 1.6 EX Quark and added small touches of sportiness, like the small lip spoilers, 15-inch alloy wheels and twin exit exhaust, to make the ultimate affordable hot hatch.
The 16-valve SOHC engine was bored out from 1.6 to 1.8 litres, which, coupled with sportier cams, a free flowing exhaust and a full remap, brought 30 more hp, for a total of 120 hp. Sufficient power to bring the car to 100 kmh from a standstill in 8.5s, while still using around 8 l/100 km of fuel.
Passengers weren’t forgotten, with niceties like a cassette radio, one airbag and body hugging seats, lined in cloth. Leather seats and a CD player are optional extras.
The price for all of this?
A mere 
7 Likes
And surprisingly it’s blue 
1 Like
hilarious!
looks like a challenge to my liking!
Well, I had this car ready before and it was already painted blue, I just took it and made it a bit lighter.
Honestly, I didn’t change it to another colour because I’m a fan of blue cars myself and couldn’t see another colour looking as good as this.
3 Likes
Building a hot hatch was never far from the minds of the engineers at Kramer Automotive. The 1996 K1 1.8S, powered by a 172-horsepower 1.8-liter normally aspirated straight-four, was the flagship of the range. Weighing in at just over a metric ton, and with a well-tuned fully independent multi-link rear end, this tiny terror could run rings around its opposition, especially with a six-speed manual gearbox as standard.
If the understated yet purposeful styling didn’t attract buyers, then the 8200-rpm redline (and the raspy exhaust note that came with it) certainly did. And yes, the Cobalt Blue of the example presented here is just one of many exterior colors offered.
With advanced safety, a decent amount of standard equipment (for the post-markup price of $16,250) and the ability to run on regular fuel (without consuming too much of it in the process), the K1 1.8S was an excellent everyday proposition. Even so, its performance ensured that it garnered plenty of plaudits worldwide - and it still does today.
@Leonardo9613 your Quark GT 1.8 looks amazing! It reminds me of a Peugeot 106 GTI or 306 GTI-6, especially from the front and rear.
5 Likes
less than a metric tonne? Last time I checked 1080 kg is more than 1000 kg.
And, how much is it?
The K1’s post-markup price is $16250, which means that without the 30% markup in place, it would cost $12500, which is slightly more than the Quark’s post-markup price. However, I tried to justify the extra cost by adding more standard equipment - time will tell if that approach pays off.
Now for an explanation of my design and engineering choices.
I didn’t use limited production parts, on the assumption that their use would not be allowed. However, I used partial aluminum panels to reduce weight, having seen that the reduction in safety would be acceptable considering the improvements in performance and economy they’d confer.
I could have used a torsion beam rear, but my “engineers first” approach meant that I ended up using an independent multi-link rear end instead - it helped that I still had plenty of unused cash to spare. And although I was tempted to use a double-wishbone front end, I rejected it for taking up too much space if the engine is transversely mounted, and thereby limiting the maximum size of the engine.
And I edited my previous post to reflect the fact that my entry actually does weigh more than one metric ton, not less. As it turned out, I could have actually reduced the weight to <1000 kg by removing the rear seats, but I retained them for the sake of eligibility.
Finally, even though I created a milder, more economical state of tune for my engine (which has a fatter torque curve), I chose not to use it, and in the interest of sportiness, went with the more powerful version instead, which has a higher redline. I stuck with regular unleaded fuel, though, because I felt that with the more aggressive tune, the engine was already powerful enough, and I also wanted to keep the running costs reasonably low.
yeah, it’s more than both a tonne and a ton
1 Like
Oh some of us still have guns…just much harder to have a reason to pass the license test even harder again to obtain a crossbow license or semi-automatic license (I need this one just to have a F.A.M.A.S that has been plugged and welded and can no longer be put back into firing order add onto that the fact that I can only use my .338 LM at 2 gun ranges Australia wide due to it being a special caliber in Aus…and $25 per round))
Currently I have been making a shitload of car companies that I can use when the UE4 update comes out, and maybe I can find a good design language for one of them by designing a car for CSR. 
1 Like
Oh good, not just me. Smol and fast.
Same. Smol, light, and way too powerful.
Due to lore I am out on this challenge. The only FWD cars I have in 1996 are a V6 sedan and a minivan, both automatics. Sadly Petoskey Motors hasn’t made a hatchback in nine years.
2 Likes
On the other hand, I simply did not want let lore get in the way of submitting an entry for this round (or any others in which I participated). Harris-Albury made few (if any) noteworthy front-drive cars in 1996, so I resorted to making a car under the Kramer nameplate, which I created specifically for this contest (and other challenges) way back in CSR17.
And I reckoned that the best way to get a favorable power-to-weight ratio was to build something that was small and light, but not too small (for practicality’s sake), while its engine had to be powerful for its size, but not too powerful (to preserve drivability). After all, with the exception of a few hardcore limited-run specials, a hot hatch should be a fun yet (relatively) frugal daily driver first and foremost. I could have used a V6, but I didn’t; I was afraid that the resulting car would actually have too much power and weight over the front wheels.
You can try for a left-field win with a limited run, manual version of the V6 if you can squeeze it in (maybe an Australia only model?). 
You’ll get a small review just for participating, 
Otherwise, maybe the next round will suit you better! 
2 Likes
And that is why I have about 6 brands in my portfolio, so I can just slap whatever badge I need when it feels right.
Although I have timelines for all of them, but I have made several non-standard models as well, like the one in my first CSR win. At least I don’t claim to be lore-friendly 
4 Likes
LVC-whirlwind
a hot hatch of a different kind
and yes it has 5 doors because a hatchback should be practical
it makes 211 hp and 186nm of torque from a 2.0 liter v6.
why v6? well the double wishbone suspension couldn’t fit a inline 4 and also we wanted a high revving engine. when you want to shift at 8400 rpm into the third gear
the suspension was tuned to be forgiving. so driveability over sportiness
it has 4 seats of premium quality and a rich premium entertainment
what is best? no damn rust. corrosion resistant steel chassis and partial alu panels help it to weight less and make it rust proof
5 Likes