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.
I guess the Poles would be pleased with the EMW. Cheap, easiest to fix, fast, reliable.
2 Likes
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…
1 Like
Used cooking oil, probably 
More likely and seriously, just a normal diesel fuel burned in a terribly neglected engine, because it’s “indestructible”.
Nah, I know what cooking oil smells like 
I’m from Swedish Alabama, you know.
And I am a McDonalds “Valued Customer”, so I know it, too
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 .
11 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
13 Likes
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!
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.
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.
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.
Emissions, NOx in particular, appear to be the most relevant limit to performance in this context.
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
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.
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.
5 Likes
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”.
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).
Uh oh, here comes some rambling from the fairly new guy... (hidden for posterity)
I will admit, I was thinking more on the side of sport-luxury how Mercedes and BMW did it… at least, with the way it was worded, I thought this was about “comfortable but performative cruiser.” Maybe it’s my USDM-oriented view, but what’s a manual doing in a “sporty” (but not sport, per se) sedan like that? Hence the more cozy adv. automatic I chose… sure, my drivetrain and suspension probably drained my reliability, but I kinda figured we were going for the “make diesel cool” approach rather than “make diesel sporty and cheap.” If you’re after a bargain, not a flagship cruiser, just say it… and at that point you might as well buy a Golf or Jetta TDI, right?
Maybe the priorities should’ve been distributed better, but maybe that’s just me, too. No offense intended, of course! Just seemed like mixed messages. It’s hard to satisfy comfort, consumption, and performance simultaneously without compromise, as my build showed, yet it seemed a bit like that’s what was asked… only for some rather compromising results to prevail. (Also… comfort was listed as a higher priority to drivability and sportiness… in a sport sedan challenge. In the '90s. Does that strike anybody else as odd…? Especially after the final results…)
Trust me, in no way am I upset. I was ambitious and probably should’ve scaled things back as far as maintaining reliability goes — that feels like a no-brainer in retrospect. (Though if the posts really were in order of leaderboard placement, that feels a bit harsh…)
Just thought I’d give my two cents. If they’re even worth that much… 
Still a fun challenge, though! Almost makes me want to see what a diesel utility challenge would reel in…
I do have finally some time to answer to the opinions and think about what was written after the challenge, and as this is a new one I am definitely dumb if I let this discussion die, since we could finally make a blueprint for further diesel experiments.
Thats definitely good to know!
Well, definitely. I just haven´t found a solution that doesn´t have unwanted side effects.
The problem is that the emission equipment will alter the consumption a lot, but, I think this is a price we need to pay if we want to get rid of unneccecarily high performance figures.
And that wasn´t wrong. In fact, the real performance figures were judged far less than I planned to, because that would have penalized those that kept it realistic. Not that I want to penalize the rocket cars here either. It was impressive what @moroza managed to build.
You got it. This is why I walked away from mandatory heavy rotating mass. On the other hand, you could limit the revving by the cam profile, but how to get that rougher smoothness of a diesel then?
It was. In fact, the cars getting far up were those that also managed to deliver good comfort. The reason is that the range of sportiness was between 5 and 25 (more or less, cant remember the exact numbers) and comfort between 20 and 55. So you can get more points in the comfort department just because of the way how the game rolls the dices for the stats. When equally prioritized, comfort was the way to go, but regarding the automatic: The reliability penalty is already waving from the other side of the road, which was a high priority.
No offense taken.
In fact, you got the exact challenge of my ruleset. The jack of all trades. And that´s maybe why my own car would have scored well, because that´s what I was trying to figure out when building the lore car. Nevertheless, I got beaten by some as I expected.
The intent is that people buying a Diesel sedan are those that spend 30.000 + kilometers in their car, and they would walk away from any uncomfortable car. Trust me, I did almost 120k annually in my best (or worst?) years as sales representative.
They were.
2 Likes
Some fair points raised for certain. Hope I wasn’t too harsh with it, and thanks again for the cool challenge! Any plans for follow-ups as of now?