Isn’t the engine displacement supposed to be 5.2L, though? I set the family displacement to 6.6L and the variant displacement to 5.2L.
Reading this I was pretty confused why my engine was so far off the Holden V8 I based it off until I realized that when the update changed engine calculations I just quickly checked it to make sure I wasn’t over-budget and nothing was stressed, and I never checked to make sure the power was where it was supposed to be 
Check your work kids!
1 Like
Yeah, that’s one of three variants of the Bricksley 427ci V8. This would be a higher-performance trim (mostly because I forgot to alter the cam when I removed the big single turbo, which would clearly be the highest performance trim, but I couldn’t get the Grand Warden Pressurized under budget at first…) and there would be a lower performance 427 available, but not with the 4 barrel carb.
So, yes, it’s production spec for a bit of a weird option, the 427 Turbo Ready block without a turbocharger. There’s a lesser V8 with a milder cam, shorter stroke (making it a 400 with blue valve covers and not a 427 with the full-bore white valve covers), and if you go without the V8, there’s several I6 engines. Notably, the 464ci and 353ci inline sixes.
So, yes, Bricksley’s engineers are outright madmen at the best of times.
2 Likes
I also didn’t check all the engineering after the update. I have no idea why it switched from a single 4bbl to double 2bbls. As long as it didn’t get disqualified I guess lol.
3 Likes
The designers were going for more of a pastel lime, but the paint shop must’ve put the wrong primer on. (Nah, that’s entirely my fault.) I’m glad the engine impresses though 
3 Likes
Good catch, I’ve corrected it, but it actually comes up as a 5.4L for me.
2 Likes
Disregard that, that’s a copy/paste error on my part, you still have the four barrel.
3 Likes
Ah, my bad
It is supposed to be 5.4L/328CID lmao
2 Likes
Well, crud. my entry originally had a four barrel carb, but the update bumped the cost over 17k. so I went with a two barrel instead. I must have resubmitted before you raised the price limit.
1 Like
So forged internals are a no no with cast iron?
Not really. But they are unnecessary if the engine can take the stress with cast internals. There is lots of cast iron engines with forged internals IRL, the Volvo B18/B20 for example.
4 Likes
It has nothing to do with cast iron. You were paying extra money for a forged bottom end that was capable of over 6000 rpm when your engine doesn’t spin anywhere near that high. You could have used cast internals with no reliability hit and used the money elsewhere. Or, alternately, you could have kept the forged parts and increased the stroke and decreased the bore to shrink the overall size, weight and cost of the engine.
3 Likes
(Dab)
Chaz: “I don’t even know where to start with the Denison. They clearly didn’t even read the brief, as this car features not just one, but two, instantanous deal killers.
"Extra pizzazz n' whatnot: -'The Mix-up'-
A Denison PR Rep, standing there looking at a empty storage lot then his clipboard. “uh wheres our old concept car of that condor model from 1970?” another Rep walks up “the one without the mirrors and has those random parts in it? it should be here…” the first rep shows the paper, “i think we got a problem, it says it got sent to that producer named ‘Chaz’.” the second rep walks over to a different section with the first following to see the car supposed to be sent.
“oh… that’s bad, real bad.” the second Rep said.
The unnecessary little story aside, i could not sit on that design i sent in, made the condor better visually at the very least. that’s what i get for Poorly building a rushed turd speed building a car.
4 Likes
Act Three: Performance
Algonquin Lucena Berline Compacte
0-62 mph: 14.10 sec
1/4 mile: 20.56 sec
Top Speed: 123 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.74 g
Body Roll: 6.5°
62-0 mph Braking: 47.5 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 2.9%
Automation Test Track: 2:58.64
Chaz: “The Algonquin drives more or less like it looks, a big comfortable beach cruiser for Florida snow birds. Acceleration is lackluster, worst in test, and the car simply doesn’t like to be hustled. But it’s still gorgeous. My eighty-seven year old uncle Doug is looking to buy a car, I think the Lucena might be perfect for him.”
Performance Score: 6
Armor Briar R
0-62 mph: 9.55 sec
1/4 mile: 17.23 sec
Top Speed: 129 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.69 g
Body Roll: 5.3°
62-0 mph Braking: 49.6 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 0.8%
Automation Test Track: 2:54.54
Chaz: “The Armor ties for worst skidpad score in the test and braking distance is near bottom of the ranks. Straight line performance is respectable, but for stunt driving I simply have little use for a car that can’t turn or stop.”
Performance Score: 9
Bricksley Grand Warden
0-62 mph: 10.90 sec
1/4 mile: 18.07 sec
Top Speed: 131 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.77 g
Body Roll: 6.8°
62-0 mph Braking: 45.1 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 0.2%
Automation Test Track: 2:49.11
Chaz: “The big Bricksley manages to power around the test track with reasonable authority. Body roll is high, but chassis balance is good and the brakes are firm and unflappable. They say a well tuned car shrinks around the driver, and I’d say that applies Grand Warden.”
Performance Score: 13
Denison Condor Slim S4
0-62 mph: 10.90 sec
1/4 mile: 17.94 sec
Top Speed: 112 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.82 g
Body Roll: 3.5°
62-0 mph Braking: 43.6 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 2.1%
Automation Test Track: 2:52.73
Chaz: “Why hasn’t someone towed this thing away, yet?”
Performance Score: 0 (Disqualified)
Eagleye Palermo
0-62 mph: 9.43 sec
1/4 mile: 17.10 sec
Top Speed: 115 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.76 g
Body Roll: 5.5°
62-0 mph Braking: 44.8 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 1.6%
Automation Test Track: 2:48.18
Chaz: “The Eagleye’s short gearing results in better than average acceleration, but the engine hits redline in top gear far too soon, limiting maximum speed. Otherwise, the Palermo turns in a well rounded driving experience with no fatal flaws, good enough overall to snatch second place in testing. Well done.”
Performance Score: 14
Halvson Harrier V8E
0-62 mph: 13.00 sec
1/4 mile: 19.50 sec
Top Speed: 122 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.69 g
Body Roll: 3.3°
62-0 mph Braking: 49.2 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 2.1%
Automation Test Track: 2:59.24
Chaz: “The Halvson manages to match the terrible lateral grip and braking of the Armor, but without the benefit of having decent acceleration. A a result, it turns in the slowest track time here. A bantamweight import like this should have at least dominated the handling tests against a pack of land yachts. It just goes to show that proper tuning is everything.”
Performance Score: 6
Kurihui Manafest
0-62 mph: 10.70 sec
1/4 mile: 18.07 sec
Top Speed: 124 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.77 g
Body Roll: 5.8°
62-0 mph Braking: 45.1 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 1.6%
Automation Test Track: 2:49.96
Chaz: “The Kurihui manages to be generally competent, not really standing out in any particular area, but free of any egregious faults behind the wheel. Performance seems somewhat similar to the Bricksley, but considering the Manafest is nearly eight hundred pounds lighter than the Grand Warden, I am slightly less impressed with those figures here. Perhaps a good benchmark for comparison, but missing the sort of secret sauce that defines the type of car I’m looking for.”
Performance Score: 12
MAHG Horizon TwinStorm
0-62 mph: 10.00 sec
1/4 mile: 17.47 sec
Top Speed: 135 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.75 g
Body Roll: 6.5°
62-0 mph Braking: 44.7 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 1.3%
Automation Test Track: 2:48.51
Chaz: “I genuinely was curious to see if the cutting edge turbocharger technology in the MAHG would pay off in testing. However, while pushing through a hard corner I heard a loud clunk from under the floor of the car and the vehicle cartwheeled suddenly off track. A post-mortem inspection showed the the front subframe attachment points had rusted through and detached. I had neglected to verify the chassis had the required standard corrosion protection during my engineering inspection, and as a result the crippled swiss-cheese Horizon is now being dragged off to be scrapped.”
Performance Score: 0 (Disqualified)
Markley Marseille Custom
0-62 mph: 12.30 sec
1/4 mile: 18.91 sec
Top Speed: 120 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.79 g
Body Roll: 4.5°
62-0 mph Braking: 44.4 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 0.6%
Automation Test Track: 2:54.04
Chaz: “As expected, that strangled engine neuters what could have been a far more competitive entry. Handling and braking are well above average and earn some well deserved kudos, but the lack of power prevents it from posting a stronger test track performance. A prime example of corporate penny pinching gone wrong.”
Performance Score: 12
Mayflower San Marino Standard
0-62 mph: 12.70 sec
1/4 mile: 19.02 sec
Top Speed: 127 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.78 g
Body Roll: 5.2°
62-0 mph Braking: 44.2 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 1.0%
Automation Test Track: 2:55.44
Chaz: “Simply not enough engine for this two ton car. I’m sure Mayflower destroked and debored their 6.6 liter big block down to a 5.4 in an attempt to improve fuel economy and emissions, but in doing so the powerplant becomes this car’s Achilles heel. Excellent suspension and brake tuning aren’t enough to make up for a subpar power-to-weight ratio.”
Performance Score: 11
Palm G6 Luxmax
0-62 mph: 9.31 sec
1/4 mile: 16.75 sec
Top Speed: 137 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.77 g
Body Roll: 2.9°
62-0 mph Braking: 46.4 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 18.9%
Automation Test Track: 2:47.42
Chaz: “Ignore the impressive stats, driving the Palm quickly is utterly nerve wracking and confidence sapping. Brake fade is the worst in the test by an order of magnitude, the pedal practically sinks to the floor during normal driving. Somehow I was able to pull off a single fast kamikaze run at the track, but I’m not getting behind the wheel of another G6 until they get with the 1970s and pony up for front disk brakes.”
Performance Score: 7
Rosewood Bovinus
0-62 mph: 8.23 sec
1/4 mile: 16.15 sec
Top Speed: 138 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.84 g
Body Roll: 4.9°
62-0 mph Braking: 42.1
Sportiness Brake Fade: 2.2%
Automation Test Track: 2:40.71
Chaz: “What an absolute beast. The Rosewood dominates nearly every performance metric I can subject it to and leaves the rest of the pack in the dust. To the engineering team involved, bravo! The Greek tragedy is that it just doesn’t look like it goes. And it still rides like an oxcart.”
Performance Score: 19
Wells Jude
0-62 mph: 12.20 sec
1/4 mile: 19.02 sec
Top Speed: 129 mph
20m Skidpad: 0.70 g
Body Roll: 3.7°
62-0 mph Braking: 51.9 m
Sportiness Brake Fade: 1.4%
Automation Test Track: 2.58.00
Chaz: “The Wells trails the back of the pack in nearly every stat, suffering from a combination of poor tuning and excessive curb weight. Stopping distance is easily worst in test, which is reason alone to chuck it into the circular file.”
Performance Score: 6
5 Likes
Denouement
Disqualified: Denison Condor Slim: 0 Points @Violent_Lobster
Disqualified: MAHG Horizon TwinStorm: 0 Points @S31
Eighth Place: Palm G6 Luxmax: 19 Points @jvs1rox
Seventh Place: Halvson Harrier V8E: 28 Points @lotto77
Sixth Place (Tie): Wells Jude: 31 Points @DuceTheTruth100
Sixth Place (Tie): Kurihui Manafest: 31 Points @BG004130
Fifth Place (Tie) Armor Briar R: 41 Points @GassTiresandOil
Fifth Palce (Tie): Eagleye Palermo: 41 Points @Prium @Vena.Sera423
Fourth Place (Tie): Markley Marseille Custom: 42 Points @Maverick74
Fourth Place (Tie): Algonquin Lucena Berline Compacte: 42 Points @Marv666
Third Place: Bricksley Grand Warden: 43 Points @Madrias
Second Place: Rosewood Bovinus: 44 Points @SheikhMansour
First Place: Mayflower San Marino Standard: 48 Points @S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T
Congratulations to our winner, and thank you to everyone for participating. I know the game updates threw all of us for a loop, and I understand many of the entries were not as optimized as they could have been under normal circumstances. Thanks for your patience, and I hope none of you took the roasting personally.
13 Likes
Thank you to @oppositelock for hosting this round. The idea of building malaise shitboxes was refreshing, and the turnover for the reviews were also very quick.
With that said, I will post the prompt for TMCC16 in a few days.
5 Likes
I will very gladly take third place! Honestly hadn’t expected to finish that well (I thought I was a goner when we started dealing with performance, actually), so I’m pleasantly surprised.
1 Like
Second place? I’ll gladly take that! I wasn’t expecting the performance section to haul me up that high. Now to become a competent designer…
2 Likes
New round is out!
2 Likes
I’m surprised my memecar did so well
2 Likes