@abg7 i will refrain from any all caps words of hurt. and instead just ask you post your best, Already Made, companies’ car to compete against the Woodley WS3.
It’s good at the front and the back, but, in my personal opinion, the side was, well, a little overly plain.
As for harsh, I established a baseline for future reviews with myself (6/10 being above average, after all) whereas Luke being a character with a similar, but different mindset being a little more harsh about the fact that he’s looking for a proper luxury car. It’s, personally, an engine problem. I4 and Luxury Sedan don’t exactly go together.
Plus, as I said, with VVT+VVL+Turbo, there’s a world of things that can be done for either power, or fuel efficiency, or both.
And yes, [quote=“strop, post:38, topic:17727”]
It’s true, as far as Automation styling goes, Speedemon did put in a good effort. I presume Madrias was thinking about real world competitors.
I did have my mindset including real world, and some of the designs I’ve seen from a lot of the CSR cars. I kinda used CSR as a baseline, because the quality of cars in there is, as we all well know, rather high.
As said, 6/10 is above average, which means in future reviews, I have established a baseline. And if I went purely by Automation standards instead of adding in some real world for my review, it might have made a 6.5 or 7 out of 10. If you’re using an I4 with VVL, VVT, and a turbocharger, I’m expecting it to be either very powerful, very fuel efficient, or both. 200 horsepower from a 2 liter I4 isn’t exactly what I would call powerful, and 25 MPG isn’t exactly very fuel efficient. And I mentioned in my review that an overdrive gear might have helped, as well as that the 200 HP I4 may have been better suited for a hot-hatch or a sports-car-on-a-budget.
The reason for the low rating was actually because of the car-type/engine-type mismatch. It’s not branded as an eco-luxury car, and the economy is actually too low for that. It’s branded as a luxury car, but the engine doesn’t say it is. It’s somewhere stuck between two worlds.
Now, here’s the thing: If the Woodley WS3 had been ranked as a high-end premium sedan, not claiming luxury, it would’ve gotten an 8/10. Why? Because it offered lots of luxury features, and in a premium sedan, I’m not going to expect more than 4 cylinders as a minimum.
Luke’s 4.5/10 is more harsh, but, the WS3 wasn’t exactly what he was looking for, either.
Now, if someone wants to make me eat my words, by all means, I’m willing to accept that. I’m willing to review more, but I don’t sugar-coat my reviews.
personally I feel a range of scores is a good thing. I haven’t yet been giving cars numerical scores because I haven’t settled on any one way of assessing them on a linear scale. Implied intent? Manufacturer claims? Simply how much I like it?
The good thing is, in this thread, you can develop a track record for the opinions of your cars, thus, you can weigh up reviews of a single car against the reviewer as well as against other reviews.
Jeez bud that wasn’t my intention at all.
I agree you should absolutely criticize poor engineering, but to me it rubs off as you being overly critical of his styling language. Personally I have done a fair share of written reviews (all are not shared yet on the forum) and I understand that if you find a car unappealing aesthetically, you’re going to be a lot more critical. It’s going to be harder to like the car.
If it sounded like I was telling you that your review is offensive and triggers my self diagnosed PTSD against people calling my cars ugly, then I apologize because that is definitely not my intention. But IMHO this reviewing board should be more to helping each other improve than being an actual magazine reviewer.
Honestly, I liked the styling of the car at the front and back. Plain isn’t necessarily bad. I was more being picky because the side didn’t fit the front or the back. I think I said it in the review that some chrome doorhandles could have helped tie the front, side, and rear together with a common element (a splash of chrome).
I know I have my own design opinions, and I know they clash with others’ opinions, often rather strongly. If it sounded harsh, it wasn’t intended to be. Blending in is good, and I even mentioned it, as quoted: [quote=“Madrias, post:36, topic:17727”]
a plain luxury car isn’t exactly bad.
Now, yes, maybe I could’ve made note of the chrome on the front and the unique tail-light design, but I didn’t want to hang on the front and rear knowing that I felt the sides were a little… how to say it nicely… I felt the sides were a little overlooked. A small amount of chrome would have blended them in and eliminated the bit of criticism it did recieve on looks, and even then, it wouldn’t have really changed the rating any. My true criticisms were aimed at, well, the engineering side of the car.
Plus, this quote also sums up where my true thoughts came in:
In other words, my thought was that it was placed too high out of its class. Lexus is high-end premium. Mercedes is Luxury. The Woodley WS3, had it been classed by Speedemon as high-end premium, would have gotten a higher rating because the I4 in a luxury car would have been forgiven easier. Had the I4 gotten better gas mileage, it would have gotten a better rating as eco-luxury.
The second review, which happens after the pros, cons, and neutral mention, is all around a fictional character who is looking for an honest luxury car. He’s more harsh because he’s trying to buy the proverbial Mercedes. And even at that, I kept looks out of it for the most part:
Now, while that last line sounds harsh, and I know it sounds harsh, it’s because the second review is meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Luke isn’t me. He’s a fictional character based around a set of standards that are reflected in how I build cars in Automation. Thereby, he has a lot of bias toward more aggressive looking designs.
Plus, as I’ve said, looks aren’t factored in the ratings at the end. I probably should have mentioned that somewhere in the main review post, but as long as it has lights and a grill, I’m not going to take points off or add points onto the score. I may point out what I like or don’t like about the design, but it won’t affect the score at the end. My review will always be first, and the only way to lose points is through engineering. In this case, it was an engine/market mismatch where the engine wasn’t efficient enough to be Eco-Luxury, but lacked the additional 2 cylinders to keep out of the line of fire from Luxury. And that’s personal bias, and I know it.
Simply put, with expensive VVL on-board, and a turbo, I expected more from the engine. Is that wrong of me? Maybe. But having those combined, I know they can be used to make power with economy. When my expectations weren’t met, I picked apart the engineering to see why the engine let the car down. Simply put, it didn’t have the fuel efficiency to make me comfortable with a 4-cylinder luxury car. A lot of poor-performance factors can be forgiven for good gas mileage.
Another design decision I picked on was the 7 speed automatic that reached top speed in the top end of 7th gear. That’s a lot of engineering time used to make a 7 speed gearbox that provides little benefit compared to using a 4 speed gearbox. You’re carrying around extra gears that added extra cost to the price, and it would only have taken a few clicks of the final drive to make an overdrive out of 7th. Again, the 7 speed let the car down on fuel efficiency, and that’s why I pointed it out.
Plus, in Luke’s Review, I pointed out what I felt was wrong.
In other words, I tried to point out what I knew would have helped the car. I don’t know enough about VVL tuning to be able to point out how to configure those, and I can’t set up the turbo to work with them, so I couldn’t help with that. But I knew certain things that I would’ve done differently. I would’ve started with an AlSi block and heads because Aluminum, for some reason, has worse stats overall. I would have avoided the more expensive Hypereutectic pistons in favor of a less expensive option, or gone for forged pistons instead, given the engine’s redline. I would have used an overdrive gear to help with efficiency, and used Premium so I wouldn’t have had to back the timing off as much. While I, too, would have used the high-flow catalytic, it had to be mentioned because it made so little difference power-wise.
So, yeah, I may have been a little needlessly harsh on some things, but it was intended in good spirit. The biggest criticism I had of the car was actually not just the 4-cylinder engine, but the 4-cylinder combined with the low fuel efficiency. I wouldn’t have been as harsh with better gas mileage, and I would have been more lenient if it had more cylinders. That’s a natural 4-cylinder bias based on the kind of car it was supposed to be.
As for why I based it as a luxury car:
If it’d been mentioned to be a high-end premium offering from the luxury brand, I would have treated it differently.
As it stands, a 6/10 is above the average, and it’s a baseline. It’s a decent car let down by the engine and transmission choices.
now i want to see a shootout between my Gulfstream and the Woodley.
Between the two of you there’d be a new segment for “people who want luxury but don’t want to get anywhere in a hurry, like, ever”
(though speedemon’s car suffers from weird tuning that also ruins the fuel economy, I just did a test build and found just how good mileage you can get out of a 1700kg plus behemoth while pushing over 300hp…)
i rejiggered it with a DCS Gearbox and a reprofiled cam and new tires. it’s now a car that can compete beyond mazda…i hope
oooh put it up, I’m curious
but can’t get to it before tomorrow.
i will at somepoint
I don’t see why people are arguing with @Madrias because I did say I wasn’t great at making luxury cars and that I was taking this opportunity to find out what I had to do with the car. Also the inline 4 is just standard and I will produce a 3 liter i6 or V6 for higher trim options. More work has to be done on the WS3 for sure. It was a great review though!
I think part of it was because I pointed at design as something I picked apart.
That is really a matter of opinion. I do agree that the side is a bit bland and I would probably revise the back a bit as well.
The back’s not too bad, actually. Chrome door handles would help with the side being a touch bland. It’s not a bad looking car, I just prefer a little more aggressive styling.
I personally think the WS3 looks great. Lots of great details, especially with the lower front and rear which is something I struggle with a lot. Yeah, the side does look a bit bland, but hey, that’s something that can be addressed quite easily
Hey guy’s I have a new model I am working on just a concept but I will sell a few to collectors the car will eventually be a premium GT v12. This is an all new undertaking from DSD as it is our first v12 and first 1000hp production car. If u are up to date with steam mods u should b fine to download. As of 2015 DSD is a medium sized Australian manufacturer filling the gap left by the outgoing Ford falcon and Holden commodore 4 door saloons.
The concept is our attempt to break into the higher end GT market competing against BMW Mercedes and Aston Martin
I introduce the DSD Concept
juliusgraham5485 - Concept DSD.zip (96.6 KB)
Well, as I’m not going to be able to get this reviewed by a certain someone who took a whack from a banhammer recently, I might as well put this up here to see what others think of it.
Note: Uses mods from the High Quality Essentials. I’m fairly sure that’s all it needs to work, but, might be wise to have most of the Steam Mods just to be safe anyway.
1982 Storm Duke
Madrias - Storm Duke.zip (98.6 KB)
This is not like the Gunslinger in the slightest. This was back when Storm Automotive was trying to be the fastest name in town, and using leading-edge technology to do so. It’s also when the design teams hadn’t yet agreed to build the same car together, leading to a gratuitous number of odd design choices, like, for example, a high-horsepower engine in a luxury station wagon.
Oh yeah, time to get this going again. And I’ll be reviewing the Gunslinger tonight!
If it wasn’t already past 11pm for me, I’d be reviewing the Duke right now. (but class starts at 8a so i need sleep)
I’m a 90s kid. So this review is written from the point of view of 1990 figures and performance.
Well, this is interesting. A mid-engined AWD platform from 1990, something generally reserved for the dead Group B rally cars and Subarus. But Storm is a US company, and as I said earlier, not many US car makers bother with mid-engined as a mainstream thing. Not that they aren’t good at it of course, if the RS200 was anything to go by.
The application for this car is somewhat different though, it’s rather on the “mild” side for Storm Automotive. Fun in a light-ish car, not too crazy. The number one question for me would be if the drive to all four wheels is worth the extra weight over, say, an MR2.
First impressions and the car carries a rather upbeat tone with its almost neon shade of yellow. The front looks a bit like it has oversized nostrils (cannot unsee). Else, it looks every bit the part of a Storm sports car with aggressive, squarish rear light and big wing. It’s promising.
Under the bootlid is a rather fancy 24v DOHC 3.0L V6 putting out a rather handsome 265bhp. The cam profile is tuned to the very high end, making for a rather lopey, rough idle, and it takes premium 95RON, leaving no illusions that even mild as it is, this car is for sports enthusiasts, not pretenders. I take special note of the individual throttle bodies, all six of them, for at these power figures they don’t increase input, but they do offer a 20% increase in throttle response over a standard body when paired with the MPFI system. Fancy stuff indeed.
The interior is also a fancy business. Bucket sport seats inform you that you’re here to drive. But the surprisingly advanced cassette player with high fidelity sound system had me wondering. I wasn’t all that sure I’d be taking advantage of it much… unless there was somebody I wanted to impress!
How does it drive? With a 5 speed manual and fancy geared LSD, it accelerates even faster than the number suggest. Under 6 seconds to 100km/h is very brisk for the price point. The diff really keeps wheelspin under control, locking up under hard acceleration. But Symtrak’s power distribution does not match the weight distribution, rather, it’s split 50:50 by default, hence the wheelspin that the Gunslinger does get is from the front tyres. Additionally, the car is subject to some torque steer.
On the other hand, the balance of the handling is characteristic of that which makes M-AWD a notoriously difficult (and in the case of Group B rally, fatal): oversteer. This car turns right on the limit to start with, and even pushing it a little harder makes the rear step out. It takes instant reflexes to catch it, making this a very twitchy and nervous handler. Even being forewarned, it comes as a nasty surprise, as the ride itself is pliant and largely fuss-free over bumps. Add to this brakes with power designed for vehicles probably about twice its size, and pretty much anything outside of city traffic driving produced the whoosh and grind of ABS activation. I was glad for the ABS, otherwise I honestly might have ended this review wrapped around a telegraph pole.
I think that would be the number one major issue I had with the car. If not for that, I would have infinitely more confidence pushing it harder through the flowing, twisting passes of… of where? Transgraafian? Trollstigen? Stelvio? Well, I suppose I could always go to Galena, lol.
- Mostly consistent engineering vision
- Fat has been trimmed for the most part, including aluminium panels
- Responsive NA motor with more than enough poke
- Won’t send me broke at the pump (19mpg is pretty good for a 1990 sports car with 265bhp, and gas was cheap back then)
- The handling will definitely kill you
- I’m not sure anybody’s going to appreciate the benefit of the premium stereo, they’re probably too busy gripping the wheel with white knuckles
- Engine is a bit peaky and so idle is very rough and low end suffers
- Not convinced of benefit of having AWD, but as it is, power distribution could have been bumped to match weight distribution
- It would be ok to sacrifice a bit of top end power for more torque down bottom. Your acceleration in the low to mid range will be significantly better, meaning significantly better 0-100 times.
- I would personally drop the AWD, but if you’re keeping it, then match torque to weight distribution for lowest wheelspin and best drivability
- The game recommends 165F/215R. That’s a good combo.
- You’ll need to increase rear camber. Terminal understeer is best in this configuration
- You can get slightly better drivability by twiddling with the damper values. It doesn’t necessarily correlate to the most settled ride when weight distribution is very askew, but generally comes close