Act Two: Engineering
Algonquin Lucena Berline Compacte
Chassis: Monocoque
Suspension: MacPherson Strut / Solid Axle Coil, Standard Springs, Twin-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.9L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 4 Barrel Carburetor, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.29, Spacing 31)
Tire Size: 185/75/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 2 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 6 Seat, Premium, Standard AM Radio
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $18,000
Curb Weight: 3507 lbs
Weight Distribution: 54.5F/45.5R
Power: 169 hp @ 4200 rpm
Torque: 224 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm
Fuel Economy: 12.5 mpg
Chaz: “Just like the design, the Algonquin shows some meticulousness in it’s engineering, and as a daily driver I have relatively little to complain about. As a stunt vehicle, probably not so much.
The engine is excessively oversquare for it’s powerband, making it larger and heavier than it needs to be. The brakes are slightly weak and suffer from fade, and the gearing is a little too tall. The soft suspension is odd in that it has a rear sway bar with no front sway bar, but the car is not overly tail happy, so I guess it works. The engine is nicely tuned with a decent torque plateau, and the car is perfectly comfortable driving around town. Will it fall apart in hard testing? Stay tuned.”
Engineering Score: 17
Armor Briar R
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Standard Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.0L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 4 Barrel Carburetors, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 4 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 4.08, Spacing 58)
Tire Size: 185/85/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 2 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Premium AM Radio
Safety: Advanced 70s
Price: $17,800
Curb Weight: 3572 lbs
Weight Distribution: 55.1F/44.9R
Power: 188 hp @ 4800 rpm
Torque: 233 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm
Fuel Economy: 11.0 mpg
Chaz: “What is that clunking noise coming from the rear end around corners? Wait, they put an off-road autolocking differential in it? I guess someone in the Wells procurement department thought they were buying a clutch type limited slip unit on the cheap. Other than that oversight, the rest of the car holds up, for the most part. The engine strangely omits a harmonic balancer to save a few bucks, then tries to fix the self-induced vibration problem with a forged crank and short stroke. But the power delivery is good, and the four speed automatic is well geared. The suspension features hard springs and soft dampers, we’ll see how well that works in the performance test. The brakes are strong, well balanced, and have low fade. Oddly, Briar spent engineering funds to shift weight towards the front of an already nose-heavy vehicle. A mixed bag, but more good than bad here.”
Engineering Score: 16
Bricksley Grand Warden
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 7.0L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 4 bbl Carburetor, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 4 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 2.99, Spacing 47)
Tire Size: 205/70/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 2 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $17,700
Curb Weight: 3890 lbs
Weight Distribution: 56.4F/43.6R
Power: 236 hp @ 4100 rpm
Torque: 316 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
Fuel Economy: 8.2 mpg
Chaz: “Why does this seven liter big block feel more like a small block around town, and then pull like a banshee up near redline? I have a feeling someone at Bricksley sent us a ringer with a high lift camshaft, which would also explain how it gets only eight miles per gallon. I can’t prove it, however, maybe their engineers are just madmen and this is actual production specification. On the plus side, the Grand Warden has some of the best brakes in the test and are virtually fade free, really remarkable for such a large car. The suspension, although allowing a lot of body roll, is well tuned and balanced. The four speed automatic keeps the peaky engine in the powerband, although I’d prefer shorter gearing. With a milder cam, this car would have very few shortcomings.”
Engineering Score: 15
Denison Condor Slim S4
Chassis: Monocoque
Suspension: MacPherson Strut / Solid Axle Coil, Standard Springs, Twin-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.4L OHV 90° V8, Aluminum, 1 x 1 Barrel Carburetor, Compact Intake
Transmission: 5 Speed Manual (Final Drive 2.86, Spacing 95)
Tire Size: 185/70/15 & 210/60/15
Front Brakes: 240mm 1 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 4 Seat, Premium, Standard AM Radio
Safety: Advanced 70s
Price: $17,600
Curb Weight: 3190 lbs
Weight Distribution: 52.7F/47.3R
Power: 152 hp @ 4100 rpm
Torque: 196 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm
Fuel Economy: 8.4 mpg
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. First, it has a five speed manual when we clearly requested an automatic. Second, it only has four seats when the minimum was five. But even if they had sent a valid entry, nightmare engineering would have kept it at the bottom of the list. Take the engine, for example. We have an expensive, unreliable, all-aluminum V8 with no harmonic damper, struggling to breathe through a solitary single barrel carburetor, with a racing camshaft that puts peak power out past redline, and finally exhaling though massive oversized exhaust pipes. I would be hard pressed to design a more gutless, inefficient motor if I purposely tried. The rest of the car is a similar litany of crimes against good automotive engineering, and I’ll leave it at that.”
Engineering Score: 0 (Disqualified)
Eagleye Palermo
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.3L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 2 x 2 Barrel Carburetors, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 4 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 4.94, Spacing 25)
Tire Size: 195/70/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 2 Piston Vented Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Advanced 70s
Price: $17,700
Curb Weight: 3551 lbs
Weight Distribution: 53.6F/46.4R
Power: 201 hp @ 5200 rpm
Torque: 248 lb-ft @ 3300 rpm
Fuel Economy: 10.7 mpg
Chaz: "I can tell right away this radiator is too small for this engine, if we start pushing this car hard it’s going to overheat in no time. The close ratio four speed automatic is also geared too short, the motor is practically taching out on the freeway. Finally, the single exhaust is too restrictive, killing maybe twenty horsepower on the top end. Otherwise, the Eagleye is a pretty good all-rounder, with decent suspension tuning and fade free vented front brakes. Not bad, not great, but I simply can’t have a stunt car blowing head gaskets left and right due to insufficient cooling.
Engineering Score: 12
Halvson Harrier V8E
Chassis: Monocoque
Suspension: MacPherson Strut / Solid Axle Coil, Standard Springs, Twin-Tube Dampers
Engine: 4.0L OHV 60° V8, Cast Iron, 2 x 2 Barrel Carburetors, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.60, Spacing 33)
Tire Size: 155/80/14
Front Brakes: 260mm 2 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $16,900
Curb Weight: 2842 lbs
Weight Distribution: 55.7F/44.3R
Power: 157 hp @ 4500 rpm
Torque: 188 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm
Fuel Economy: 11.2 mpg
Chaz: “The best thing I can say about the Halvson is that it’s the only car here which weighs under three thousand pounds, which should make it the sports car of the group. Unfortunately, that weight advantage translates neither into performance nor efficiency. Underhood is a small displacement, narrow angle V8 that somehow drinks more fuel than many heavier, faster cars. Blame an aggressive camshaft and suboptimal tuning. Being far too oversquare also adds unnecessary engine weight. Massive brake ducts can’t keep the undersized rear drums from fading, although stopping power when cold is strong. Chassis tuning looks good on paper, but I have a hunch that’s just not going to be enough to save it in the performance test.”
Engineering Score: 10
Kurihui Manafest
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Leaf, Progressive Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.0L OHV 60° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 4 Barrel Carburetor, Mid RPM Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.87, Spacing 30)
Tire Size: 185/80/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 1 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Basic AM Radio
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $17,800
Curb Weight: 3113 lbs
Weight Distribution: 54.6F/45.4R
Power: 177 hp @ 4700 rpm
Torque: 232 lb-ft @ 2300 rpm
Fuel Economy: 12.4 mpg
Chaz: “The narrow angle aluminum V8 in the Kurihui vibrates like a washing machine digesting a cinder block and has a well-deserved reputation for grenading itself. The combination of an unusually rich fuel mixture and very mild camshaft actually results in a nice, flat powerband and respectable fuel economy, which is surprising. The engine is excessively loud however, higher than what we originally specified, but since it’s a minor infraction I’ll let it slide. The Manafest is unique in having rear leaf springs, every other manufacturer here seems to have concluded that coil springs are better for passenger car applications, I guess the company has a stockpile they need to get rid of. Perhaps that’s one reason why, despite having ridiculously soft springs, the car is one of the least comfortable I’ve been in. The brakes have minor fade, but the initial bite is good.”
Engineering Score: 9
MAHG Horizon TwinStorm
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Twin-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.2L OHC Twin Turbo I6, Cast Iron, 2 x 2 Barrel Carburetors, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.50, Spacing 30)
Tire Size: 205/65/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 2 Piston Vented Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Premium, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $17,700
Curb Weight: 3639 lbs
Weight Distribution: 60.9F/39.1R
Power: 245 hp @ 4800 rpm
Torque: 294 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
Fuel Economy: 6.9 mpg
Chaz: “This looks more like a science experiment than an engine, but I have to give MAHG credit for trying new things with it’s radical turbocharged straight six. It’s certainly the most powerful motor of the bunch, but at what cost? The fuel economy is absolutely abysmal, under seven miles a gallon. It’s only a few pounds lighter than the seven liter behemoth in the Bricksley, but pushes the weight out ahead of the front axle, resulting in nearly sixty-one percent of the vehicle mass sitting on the front tires. Reliability is almost as bad as the Kurihui. We’ll have to wait and see if these sacrifices pay off on the test circuit, but I don’t think suspension tuning is going fix that weight distribution problem around corners. Brakes seem average with slight fade, but the three speed automatic is geared well.”
Engineering Score: 11
Markley Marseille Custom
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.7L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 2 Barrel Carburetor, Compact Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.64, Spacing 50)
Tire Size: 205/70/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 1 Piston Vented Disc
Interior: 6 Seat, Standard, Basic AM Radio
Safety: Advanced 70s
Price: $16,900
Curb Weight: 3733 lbs
Weight Distribution: 54.3F/45.7R
Power: 162 hp @ 4900 rpm
Torque: 232 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm
Fuel Economy: 10.2 mpg
Chaz: "I’m telling you, the choice of a two barrel carb plus an undersized single exhaust absolutely strangles this otherwise decent engine. I suspect changing those two items alone would unlock fifty horsepower while keeping the car well under budget and having a negligible effect on fuel economy. Combined with tall gearing on the three speed automatic, I don’t have high hopes for straight line acceleration. The rear springs and dampers are too soft for my liking, but overall balance seems good, and the brakes are rock solid. Perhaps this is what some people call a “momentum car.”
Engineering Score: 13
Mayflower San Marino Standard
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Twin-Tube Dampers
Engine: 5.4L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 2 x 2 Barrel Carburetor, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.29, Spacing 57)
Tire Size: 205/70/15
Front Brakes: 285mm 2 Piston Vented Disc
Interior: 6 Seat, Standard, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $17,400
Curb Weight: 4029 lbs
Weight Distribution: 54.1F/45.9R
Power: 186 hp @ 4100 rpm
Torque: 256 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm
Fuel Economy: 11.2 mpg
Chaz: “On close inspection it’s hard to find much wrong with the Mayflower. The front brakes look slightly undersized, but they perform well enough. The engine is nicely tuned with a broad powerband. Spring and damper tuning feels spot-on. Nothing stands out as glaringly wrong, most everything seems logical and carefully thought-out. But can this two ton beast actually dance?”
Engineering Score: 19
Palm G6 Luxmax
Chassis: Monocoque
Suspension: MacPherson Strut / Solid Axle Coil, Standard Springs, Twin-Tube Dampers
Engine: 6.0L OHV 60° V8, Cast Iron, 2 x 2 Barrel Carburetors, Compact Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.28, Spacing 60)
Tire Size: 190/70/14 & 185/75/14
Front Brakes: 275m Drum (2LS)
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $17,700
Curb Weight: 3259 lbs
Weight Distribution: 59.2F/40.8R
Power: 211 hp @ 4700 rpm
Torque: 280 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm
Fuel Economy: 13.4 mpg
Chaz: “The first time I drove the Palm around the block and revved it out it to redline, it shot a piston and connecting rod out the side of the block like a cannon. I swear, narrow angle V8s and lousy engineering seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. Good thing the car committed seppuku so soon, otherwise I would have probably crashed the first time I tried stomping on the brake pedal. The four wheel drums on the G6 are so utterly useless I would probably be better off using my feet like Fred Flintstone. And the rest of the car doesn’t fare much better, I’m afraid. Why are the front tires wider than the rear, and why are they such an oddball size? Why is the suspension so hard it shakes my fillings out? Why, why, why? The Denison was terrible, but to its credit at least it didn’t try to actively kill the driver. At least the fuel economy is good, I guess.”
Engineering Score: 5
Rosewood Bovinus
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 6.4L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 4 Barrel Carburetor, Low RPM Intake
Transmission: 4 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.53, Spacing 50)
Tire Size: 205/65/15
Front Brakes: 280mm 2 Piston Vented Disc
Interior: 5 Seat, Standard, Standard 8 Track
Safety: Standard 70s
Price: $17,800
Curb Weight: 3460 lbs
Weight Distribution: 57.7F/42.3R
Power: 233 @ 4900 rpm
Torque: 294 @ 3200 rpm
Fuel Economy: 12.9 mpg
Chaz: “I can scarcely believe it, the retina scorching commie limo has the most spectacular engine here, by far. It makes essentially the same power as the larger Bricksley V8 with its wild cheater cam, but instead has a lovely flat torque curve from idle to redline, is dead nuts reliable and is near the top in terms of fuel economy. If I was judging these cars based solely on engine alone, the Rosewood would nail a solid 20. The rest of the car bumps that score down, however. As in, literally “bumps.” The ultra-low suspension sits practically on the bumpstops, and driving around on anything other than glass-smooth roads is genuinely excruciating. And even with maximum cooling, the rear brakes struggle slightly to keep up with the powerful engine. But with a more reasonable ride height and some minor tweaks here and this, the Bovinus has the potential to be a legitimate performance sedan benchmark. Color me surprised.”
Engineering Score: 18
Wells Jude
Chassis: Ladder
Suspension: Double Wishbone / Solid Axle Coil, Progressive Springs, Mono-Tube Dampers
Engine: 6.6L OHV 90° V8, Cast Iron, 1 x 4 Barrel Carburetor, Compact Intake
Transmission: 3 Speed Automatic (Final Drive 3.47, Spacing 33)
Tire Size: 195/80/15 & 205/75/15
Front Brakes: 300mm 2 Piston Solid Disc
Interior: 6 Seat, Standard, Standard AM Radio
Safety: Advanced 70s
Price: $18,000
Curb Weight: 4139 lbs
Weight Distribution: 54.3F/45.7R
Power: 210 hp @ 4300 rpm
Torque: 300 lb-ft @ 2300 rpm
Fuel Economy: 11.0 mpg
Chaz: “The Wells V8 has a nice power curve and is moderately efficient, but for some reason they decided to spend a chunk of the budget on forged internals that essentially do nothing, tuned it for non-existent 90 RON fuel instead of 91, and fitted it with a restrictive exhaust system. The front brakes are weak, and the staggered tires serve little function other than driving up the cost of tire replacements. The spring rates border on unnecessarily hard, especially in front, and despite being the heaviest car in the test the comfort is fairly mediocre. Minor problems individually, and truth be told it’s not a bad car overall, but combined together it serves to place the Wells mid-pack in this group.”
Engineering Score: 14
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 
