The Diesel sport sedan challenge

[Happyhungryhippo]

Eliminations 1

Well, it seems my rulesets that are always meant to be beginner-friendly work out as it obviously wasn´t hard to follow them.

N e v e r t h e l e s s,
I got some heavy cheese, seeing overly stuffed engines that are far away from what was built in real life, so some Diesel sedans totally busted a Corvette of 1994.
What saved you all is:
a) what is not in the rules is not forbidden
b) the challenge itself is already heavy cheese.

The cars are revealed in order of their score, so the finale will be among the best three.

TCW S3 by @toxicnet

It is fast. It does not consume a lot. And it does have a sporty handling, yay! But the drawbacks are huge. The car is unreliable, and the comfort is that of a wooden stool. In fact, the manufactor seems to have taken “sport sedan” too literally. It is great fun on a twisty road, but you buy a Diesel for long-distance driving, and … no, just no. The ride is too harsh. The design is also not selling it. There are nice details like a rear wiper on a notchback and a roof spoiler, but the mirrors are way too small and the design is overall bland. But a thumb up for trying at an interior that doesn´t look too bad. Sport interior, high performance tires - that is coming with a bazooka to a Judo championship and leads to absurd service cost.

Sarazin Elysee SD by @SheikhMansour

Let´s start with the worst: The design score is only 30 percent, since it´s really not a pleasure to look at. It is also thirsty and not easy to drive. On the other side, it´s reliability isn´t bad and it surely is decently comfortable, other than the TCW, but sportiness suffers. It is not the dullest, and the engine surely offers a lot of power for the price. A facelift might cure the most obvious flaw.

AMB SE03 DDS by @EnCR

In this competition, the car is definitely NOT fast. But 225 kph top speed and 8,9 seconds for the 100 kph sprint are still to be considered good for a diesel. It looks a bit dull, but pleasant, the design is alright but not a head-turner. We think it goes well with the overall relaxed driving experience of the AMB. It is not a real sport sedan and does not pretend being one, even if it handles alright. Reliability is average at best, and the comfort could be better. The same can be said for the consumption, with 7,6 liter the car is the thirstiest, which is even worse considering that it returns solid, but definitely unimpressive performance. The rest of the car however is nothing to complain about - and the price is affordable, what sadly is not the case for maintenance.

Bullinger EM635d by @IncredibleHondaFit

$ 27.500 is a lot of money, and at the Bullinger dealership, you get quite a bland styling for it, but we still saw it at 68% because nothing is really ugly, it´s just that it isn´t a beauty either. What you also get is good reliability and better than average comfort. Sportiness is low, and the consumption is also among the thirsty cars here, almost matching the AMB by only 0,1 liter less. Not a bad car, but for this price, we see better alternatives here. We also note that the car is the safest here, not by a wide margin, and it´s also not scored, but we think it is worth mentioning before you put the Bullinger off your list.

Journeyman GD-S by @supersaturn77

After some very restrained looking sedans, this is now a daring one, with rather expressive lines and shapes. Even the interior is a wild mix of boxy and fluent shapes and old-fashioned and radical modern styling. We didn´t like it too much, but we avoided noting a low score since we must accept that some courage needs to be rewarded, so it scores mid-field in design. Individualists might have a closer look at this vehicle. AWD and active suspension make the car slower, in fact, 9,4 seconds to 100 kph are not up to the competition, even if they are surely performant enough for daily traffic. The car is very driveable and manages to deliver sufficient comfort and sportiness at once, but the other side of the hightech usage is mediocre reliability and a hefty $ 35.200 price tag. Way too much in this competition. The servicing is pricy but not as expensive as we first thought after looking at all the technology featured here.

[supersaturn77]

My unconventional styling is recognized again! I see this as an absolute win. Eager to see what the final results are…

oh yeah here's the ad i may or may not have forgotten to post. shhh nobody needs to know

[Happyhungryhippo]

@supersaturn77

My unconventional styling is recognized again! I see this as an absolute win. Eager to see what the final results are…

It reminds me of an earlier version of a Dodge Neon SRT4.
Let´s proceed then.

EMW Proletarius by @HermannMatern

Definitely proletarian is its accessibility, since it is the cheapest car to buy and also the cheapest so service. On the other hand, you will have to face consequences for going cheap. The drivability is the lowest, and it´s really not the easiest one to drive. The comfort is also compromised by the budget chassis. On the other hand, using simple engineering, the Proletarius is quite reliable. The design is not impressive - you see that this is a budget car, even before you notice the small door handles that make it difficult for large proletarian worker´s hands to open them. We see it at a 55% score in that aspect, so it´s not ugly, but you won´t buy this car for its looks. On the other hand, 215 kph top speed might be low, but it does propell to 100 kph in only 6,4 seconds thanks to a viscous LSD - remarkable at this price point and the bang for the buck is good in this car from East Germany. In some aspects, it does have “Weltniveau”.

Régal 344d by @karhgath

Clearly an older model, but recently updated with the new engine and some refinements. While it still screams “late 80s!!!”, the proven design returns alright reliability. And the edgy and french looking car surely has some character in a world increasingly dominated by blobs. The interior is also dated, but well-styled and logical arranged. On the other hand, nothing about this car does impress us. Consumption isn´t that low, comfort should be better, the drivability shows the model age. On the other hand, it´s nowhere the last, and the price is low. The performance figures are competetive as well. If the EMW is too bland for you, and a car slightly easier to drive is preferred, it can be an alternative for not too much more to pay - servicing isn´t a bargain, but neither does it cause holes in your pocket.

ACR Lanea 2.8 DTS by @shibusu

The Dutch have a reputation of being relaxed. Looking at this car, we can see why. The design is smooth, unoffensive, somehow laid back but definitely modern. If the designers smoked herbals, they definitely bought them at the right dealer. A 75 percent score is the reward. Performance is reasonnable, and the handling makes use of the power. On the other hand, the comfort is lacking, and the car was also not that easy to drive as others in this competition. But we were pleased by an acceptable consumption, affordable servicing and a price of only $18.000, making it cheaper than the Régal. In fact, the costs are close to the EMW bargain, and you get the better car here. Why isn´t it in the top 3 then? Well, as we said, the comfort is low, drivability mediocre at best, and we would wish for more reliability, although our test car showed no issues while the test, so it is not too bad. Our budget recommendation here! If you want to spend more for the better, go on reading.

Waldersee Freiherr L34D by @Texaslav

Just as the Régal, the Waldersee can not hide it´s age, it is from 1988 just as its rival. It also can´t hide being an American design, although it has been mixed with German engineering.
Speaking of the design, some shapes and proportions seem weird. Maybe they are more fashionable in the USA. We also were not fond of the oversized headlights that dominate the front. Another similarity to the Régal is the dated but pleasantly arranged interior. It is even almost the same price as the Régal, so we can say it´s definitely not overpriced, as the Waldersee provides us with the second-highest reliability. And even if you need to visit the shop, they won´t rob you, as the estimated service expenses are modest compared to many competitors. A proven design, but we think drivabilty and comfort are not up to the standards of the top tier entrants. The top speed of 199 kph is disappointing, as all others at least manage figures in the 200+ range, but the accelleration is brisk enough with 7,7 seconds. Consumption is mediocre, but not too high considering the model age. If you can live with the outlandish shape and styling and worship reliability and value for money, and you want to buy this car, we see no reason to talk you out of it.

[HermannMatern]

Targeted market was clearly visible on the numberplates. A good tuner could just remove the electronically regulated speedlimit bringing it to 250km/h. I like the review and am quite happy not to be dead last with it.

[Happyhungryhippo]

I guess the Poles would be pleased with the EMW. Cheap, easiest to fix, fast, reliable.

[Knugcab]

As long as you can make it run on whatever smelly fuel it is that makes you run for your life every time you spot a Caravelle TDI on polish plates…

[Hshan]

Used cooking oil, probably More likely and seriously, just a normal diesel fuel burned in a terribly neglected engine, because it’s “indestructible”.

[Knugcab]

Nah, I know what cooking oil smells like I’m from Swedish Alabama, you know.

[Happyhungryhippo]

And I am a McDonalds “Valued Customer”, so I know it, too

[Happyhungryhippo]

As I had some kind of “adventure trip”, I had to delay the next judgements a bit, but here they are!

We are now in the top 6, which means, the air is thin and the cars definitely of a quality that a potential buyer should make an appointment for a test drive before deciding. and its now becoming interessing for the next host determination if a Diesel challenge should be recurring

Kashmir Mararaja 2.5 TDX by Nocturne (Discord) - 6th

No, this is not an used car. In fact, it isn´t even an old model like the Waldersee or Régal. The Mararaja is all new for 1994. The engineering is up to date. It is alright to handle, and it does make some fun in corners, although the emphasis is not really on sport here. The top speed is low, thanks to the not really great aerodynamics. The consumption seems fairly ok for the shape then. It is also among the easier to service for a low price. That´s it about the highlights. The rest is not remarkable, but also not disappointing. This leaves us with the looks. Well, it is an anachronism, but if we rewind 10 years back, it would have looked quite good. Even the interior is styled in a, well, let´s say, traditional fashion. You can see this car as a statement, somehow. We gave it a 60% score for the looks, they are good, but you need to use a time machine.

REFERENCE ONLY - Primus Merit 250tds

I refuse to review my own creation, but this is where I would have ended up, if my gave myself a 75 percent design score like the ACR which I see at a similar level. So it´s here for benchmarking, as some hosts do sometimes, like LHC. It will be interessing when it comes to performance figures to compare what I had in mind and what was the acutal outcome. If you are interessed what I would have gone for:,Reliability and service cost are a hit, consumption is low, nothing is a miss, but the drivability isn´t great, as an RWD car without ESC, and for the not really modest price, Primus doesn´t include adaptive dampers or other goodies. This car also does not have an automatic, and not even a premium stereo, but I have put quality points into the interior and the suspension to get the comfort up. I thought it would have been hard to beat me, but this test shows that others can do better.

Macht Teuton Blackbolt TDi by @GetWrekt01 and @Riley - 5th

The visual difference to the Kashmir Mararaja can´t be larger than this. The Macht is definitely what we call a sport sedan, judging by the looks. Almost 80 percent, because it´s nailing the sporty part of the brief. One can have mixed opionions about some details or the unusual taillights, but again, it does go well with the brief. And it is fast. Comfort doesn´t disappoint us, almost matching the Primus, and the drivability is very pleasant, but: It doesn´t handle as sporty as it looks. Even the Primus is a small hint sportier, but nowhere as easy drivable as this. A competent machine that refuses to sacrifice too much for sportiness that isn´t needed in a sedan car. The servicing isn´t one of it´s brightest moments either, but in the end, the Teuton TDi is a good car.

Nordwagen Valkyrja T-6Dx2 by @moroza - 4th

Even if the Nordwagen also seems to be an anachronism like the Kashmir Mararaja, it looks miles better. Only few brands can use classic or even outdated design elements and still let the cars look modern and prestigious - and Nordwagen is one of them, rewarded with 85% design score here - the second highest. Nordwagen also tends to offer the overkill in performance and luxury. Indeed the Nordwagen absolutely swipes the floor in terms of performance, but the comfort isn´t really remarkable for being a Nordwagen. On the other hand, the consumption is really low, and that together with the best performance by a wide margin make the high purchase price (a little more than the Bullinger, but a lot less than the Journeyman) feel justified. On the other hand, if the Nordwagen didn´t make you bankrupt at the moment of purchase, it absolutely will at the garage, the service cost of more than $1750 annually is hard to accept. This is the price of owning an exclusive high performance machine.

THE PERFORMANCE

As promised, I will let you see what rockets I got here. The Primus Merit tds is included, as described above, to make you check what I would consider a damn fast Diesel sedan of 1994…

TOP SPEED IN KPH

NORDWAGEN: 293
SARAZIN: 284
PRIMUS: 268 (I went a bit too far here, the 250 kph limit makes totally sense and is fine for me)
ACR: 251
BRANSON, MACHT, BULLINGER, TCW: 249 (yeah, the speed limiter gang)
CABRIOU: 242
REGAL: 236
JOURNEYMAN: 235
ORAN: 228

------- (this is where I would say it´s still sane, but below 220 seems a bit gutless, considering how much Automation topspeeds exceed in general) --------

AMB: 225
EMW: 215 (also limited, which gave it great svc, but at the price of prestige)
KASHMIR: 209
WALDERSEE: 199

ACCELERATION IN SECONDS TO 100 KPH

NORDWAGEN: 5,6 (wtf?)
EMW and TCW: 6,4 (yes, the cheapest car, the EMW, casually smokes most of the competition)
Sarazin: 6,9 (as for the speed, here it also manages to be at the top)
MACHT and REGAL: 7
ACR: 7,5 (quite good considering the car is rather cheap)
BRANSON and WALDERSEE: 7,7 (so, don´t think the Waldersee has lackluster performance. It doesn´t.)
Kashmir: 7,8 (quite good considering how slow it looks)
PRIMUS: 7,9

---------- yep, that´s what I thought would be the upper performance in terms of accelleration. Oh damn, was I wrong!

CABRIOU: 8,4
BULLINGER: 8,5
AMB: 8,9
JOURNEYMAN: 9,4
ORAN: 9,5

------------- well, and thats what I expected them to perform: At least 9,5 seconds. That was performance league in the mid-90s. And guess what? All cars archieved that, or were far above.

The consumption, well, the Cabriou and Nordwagen are the winners with 5,5 liter, while the Primus as reference car needs 6. The thirstiest is the AMB with 7,6 liter. Sure, compared to real life, that´s still excellent, but I need to say it´s too much when @moroza builds a literal supercar that needs two liters less.
@Texaslav If I remember right, you wondered in discord about your consumption being average. At 6,3 liter, it is. On the other hand: Your car is quite a barge and accellerates quite fast, and therefore it´s definitely not bad.

FINALS SOON with the cars from @Ananas , @donutsnail and @vero94773 .

[Hshan]

As I expected, overkill performance in many cars I see that mine would be really close to the reference Primus in terms of the performance, nearly the same top speed, acceleration and consumption IIRC.

Just checked, the Nordwagen is quicker than the M5 of the era.

[Happyhungryhippo]

The Finals

Branson S270d Performance by @vero94773 - 3rd

It looks elegant, muscular and modern. In fact, this thing has definitely a visual presence on the road. We see it at 88 percent, making it the highest-ranking in visuals here. Comfort and handling are up to the expectations we had when looking at the competent design, but both the consumption and the purchase price are nothing for bean counters. Servicing is average, at best, but not as ruinous as for a Nordwagen. The reliability is average. This car is a looker, and avoids a miss anywhere, but others might provide similar value for less money.

Oran Corpo 2.3 CSD by @Ananas - 2nd

The Oran Corpo looks like two segments below the Branson. It is not ugly or looks cheap, but definitely very modest. It is also smaller, yet even more comfortable than the sharp looking rival. And it is a lot cheaper, $ 21.000 is not much. You get a low consumption, and the car is easy to drive, but not really sporty, but we would say the the handling is still somehow fun. Servicing is also very affordable - but that´s neccecary, as these cars are not really reliable. What was not judged but worth a note: The safety is not good, it barely passed the required standards.

AND THE WINNER IS…
Cabriou Martinique GX by @donutsnail

This car is a perfect representation of the American understanding of a sport sedan, as the Macht is for a German one. The Cabriou doesn´t look like a capable performer, more than an elegant and reasonnable old-fashioned sedan. And yes: It is fulfiling the old values of a sedan. It is very comfortable, very thrifty, has the best reliability and servicing is ok. And as we expected, the sportiness lacks here, it handles average and isn´t all that fun. But it is an honest car, not trying to pretend being something else than a fairly good and well-made American intermediate sedan. The price is a lot higher than the Oran, but on the other hand, we really liked the smoothness and elegance of its design, we see it at the same level as the Macht, just for an opposite taste.

[supersaturn77]

The American entry wins! Makes me wonder if I should’ve gone a bit more for “badge-engineered import” over “re-engineered shared platform” myself… congrats to everyone! This was a serious learning experience for me, super fun to try something new. I know how to make low-revving engines properly now… that’ll be useful. Thanks for hosting this!

[Ananas]

Great job on the reviews, I enjoyed reading every one of them. Cool to see that I managed to get a good service cost in, that used to be a weak point for me in challenges in the past. Thanks to fun challenges like this I am getting better at the game.

[moroza]

The diesel experiment was successful, or at least very useful. I’m going to incorporate some of the framework here into ARM30 and likely other future challenges. I have to say, though, it does seem odd that the top two of a sport sedan challenge are said to not have much sport, and for reliability being a high priority, it seemed to matter a lot less in the end.

As for mine, the gearbox penalty took comfort from 47.4 to 40.9. And SVC… a speed limiter’d’ve surely helped, but performance was ranked more important, so that’s what made that decision.

[Hshan]

After testing it in practice, what y’all think about the “diesel rules”?

To me (I haven’t entered, but the engineering side of my potential entry is complete) it felt like they’re working pretty nice, except for, yes, performance, that being easily way higher that IRL, so maybe some balancing in that regard could be useful. Although TBH seeing how very overkill engines can work, I don’t really have a good idea how that could be balanced.

[moroza]

Emissions, NOx in particular, appear to be the most relevant limit to performance in this context.

[vero94773]

for a car that i made in just about a day and having relatively little experience making diesels in Automation, i’m more than happy with 3rd, thanks to @Happyhungryhippo for hosting a fun challenge to build in

[donutsnail]

@moroza

I have to say, though, it does seem odd that the top two of a sport sedan challenge are said to not have much sport, and for reliability being a high priority, it seemed to matter a lot less in the end.

The way I interpreted the sportiness and performance priority in the rules post, I felt that I needed only to be as performant as the vehicles listed in the inspirations. While sportiness is hard to quantify, the acceleration numbers and top speed of my car were well beyond those of the inspirations, so I gambled a bit that making the car any faster or sportier would be of dubious value and instead turned my priorities towards the other priorities, primarily reliability, consumption, comfort, and drivability.

@Hshan

After testing it in practice, what y’all think about the “diesel rules”?

To me (I haven’t entered, but the engineering side of my potential entry is complete) it felt like they’re working pretty nice, except for, yes, performance, that being easily way higher that IRL, so maybe some balancing in that regard could be useful. Although TBH seeing how very overkill engines can work, I don’t really have a good idea how that could be balanced.

One rule that jumped out at me that I believe should be changed is the rotating mass being capped at 50. I think, since diesels tend to have very heavy rotating assemblies, would should have maybe instead been required to set these to 100, which would have produced more more appropriate slow-revving behavior that would in turn penalize the drivability of RWD cars less. This would make engines that are smoother and capable of higher RPMs, however, likely the reasons this was capped.

Power potential definitely would need to be reeled in, in some form or another. I did not attempt to build a very powerful engine so I would be the wrong person to ask about how to block that sort of thing.

Overall this was a really novel challenge idea and something I enjoyed building for, thank you @Happyhungryhippo for hosting.

[Hshan]

TBH revviness can be limited by fuel map too, which IMO would be a better solution due to that additional smoothness with heavier rotating assembly. As for power - I didn’t try to build a too powerful engine, and I ended up with a 2.3 making 160 hp and ~350 Nm IIRC… which, I realised afterwards, would be very powerful for the era anyway, and even more so very torquey. And that is without “CR” (DFI). There wasn’t really a reason to make the engine weaker other than “I want the engine weaker”.

@moroza

Emissions, NOx in particular, appear to be the most relevant limit to performance

Interesting, I didn’t really notice that but that might be a good direction indeed.

PS Just checked - probably the fastest diesel sedan in 1994 was the Audi A6 2.5 TDI, with 140 hp, 290 Nm and 0-100 km/h in 9,9s. Volvo matched it a year later, others I’ve checked were a bit slower (BMW, MB, Lancia, AR, Citroen).