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

Microwave · 1 January 2017 22:02

@lordvader1

Anyway, is there a specific markup we need to use?

NormanVauxhall · 1 January 2017 22:26

It is a prototype that must be evaluated for mass production. Markup on this will not make any sense.

NormanVauxhall · 1 January 2017 22:28

Some bodies can give 6 seats… Anyway.

I can’t create the engine because I don’t have access to a PC that runs the game at the moment.

Also can be 2 or 3 valve setup. Up to you.

nialloftara · 1 January 2017 22:33

Sohc only, or can we use daohc?

NormanVauxhall · 1 January 2017 22:51

DAOHC is not allowed

abg7 · 2 January 2017 00:11

Regarding value for money, will fuel economy be a major consideration?

I also had an idea about a round set in 1975, but it would have been about building post-fuel crisis muscle cars, instead of family cars accessible to the common man back then. Oh well, I’ll have to wait until the next round at the very least.

Darkshine5 · 2 January 2017 03:51

YES FINALLY. A French round yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ou

koolkei · 2 January 2017 05:06

F U

Zabhawkin · 2 January 2017 05:12

Yeah, DMA isn’t know for its looks

strop · 2 January 2017 05:48

It’s a Norman Vauxhall round, fuel economy will definitely matter as will service costs.

Ornate · 2 January 2017 06:51

So, that means no station wagons? Because I hate the looks of sedans.

Also, may I ask how much does the utility score matter, if at all.

NormanVauxhall · 2 January 2017 10:09

I love you too

Gotcha mate!

Indeed.

A bit. Be reasonable.

Ornate · 2 January 2017 11:09

Oh no, well, at least I should get a decent review from my take of a budget-premium ‘sedan’.

lordvader1 · 2 January 2017 12:26

he said nothing about turbochargers, because they appear in 1975

NormanVauxhall · 2 January 2017 12:53

You are free to turbocharge the car

koolkei · 2 January 2017 13:20

WAY AHEAD OF YOU…

strop · 2 January 2017 13:26

lol saw that coming a mile off. So how’s the journal bearings?

koolkei · 2 January 2017 13:29

as long as you can make it a lazy low boost turbo. it’s actually feasible. it’s on 0.45bar right there.

and like 30-35 cam profile. can’t remember. end fuel economy 25mpg and 0-100 in 11s flat

very much respectable from a 1.7L in 1975. but it won’t be my submission though. we have some other plan

Hshan · 2 January 2017 14:26

There’s an interesting thing I’ve noticed about turbos recently - I’ve made two variants of the same engine, both turbocharged and with the same parts, but one with a low boost turbo (0.5-0.7 bar, don’t remember exactly) and the other with a higher boost, but very late spooling turbo (1.0-1.1 bar). Both with roughly the same power and cost. And it seems that higher boost is not a bad idea - high boost car variant had higher drivability (from 58 to 64, I think?) with not much worse fuel consumption (from 8.6-8.9 to 9.2-9.4 - don’t remember exactly too). And high boost variant had lower emissions.

Ornate · 2 January 2017 16:10

I kinda regret not adventuring much with turbos but then again I managed to get 11.5s and 32.5 mpg with an NA engine, maybe lacking in drivability but, It’s efficient.