Here is mine, the 1978 Desert Motors Escalante. It is a sad day for Desert Motors when they have to downsize their normally gargantuan land barges to the slightly more practical land yachts.
Also to everyone, what size do you normally upload the photos at, I would love to not need to scroll through mine.
And we already have the winner for the least Marketing-friendly car/trim name! 
Now to see how big of a heart attack you gave the bean counters…
seriously, what’s with all the Falkslands references xD First, Jack’s numberplate in LFS, now, Conan’s, er, SHIP…
Of course!
(just remember that wanton use of quality sliders will make your production costs go up pretty darn quick… and total cost is factored into cost to own…)
The Seishido Rigel: Mostly known for it’s ill-fated touring racing career, it’s been dubbed “The Aero Brick” by the EGT engineers themselves when interviewed on the subject in 1987, the name then stuck in the racing community, alongside several internet memes about it’s questionable performance, now, i’m going to submit it’s street car brethren, in a decadent USDM version, with an… coughautomaticcough … I guess it was necessary. And a REAL cushy interior, that makes the Achernar look like a Cossack 1000 (Hint: not really.) It’s been widely appreciated by consumers, mostly… wait. Why am i telling you such useless details? You’ll see what’s it’s all about in the competition.
And we already have the winner for the least Marketing-friendly car/trim name!
Now to see how big of a heart attack you gave the bean counters…[/quote]
From the conversations we had on IRC it is probably not going to be that bad.
In terms of fuel mileage though…
angentine is broke and won’t buy many luxobarges anyway!
It took 5 minutes of building to make me ditch the hideous auto 'box. Nope. All of my nope.
Feels a bit like…
Anyway, I just wanted to add that I feel that Vic’s competitions are easy to compete in and thus attract a lot of people who just bought the game recently, or may enter such a competition for the first time.
Contrary to DerBayer’s competition where everyone participates, even the best in the world (gasps).
For me, personally, adding extra weights or other obstacles to make “winning” harder is not a thing. Vic’s way of doing it does not make me feel excluded at all, I will still make a car and see how it pans out, just because it is fun.
As for the naming of cars, while I feel that criticism should always be considered, the real problem is in the current version of the game. (Yes, there, I said it!) I feel the current way of naming your trims and families etc is… tiring, exhausting, not helpful. THAT’s the real issue, to me. And, last but not least, one can always make a copy, add a letter outside of the game and then rework it for another competition, no?
No? I don’t see the problem in that, really…
That being said, Romanov will come up with a car soon… very soon…
And BlastersPewPew, that car sure is pretty… it looks so neat… so Murica.
It has a very 3rd Gen Chevy Monte Carlo feel to it.
Except without the horribly cheap GM interior. 
And now for my…
… File naming convetion: I MAY change it ON THE NEXT competition, but not this one. Critics, remember: the user has to manage 4 files. I have to manage 124 (or more) for this ONE competition. I already stated in the OTHER conversation on this matter (1955 BRC topic) that I use archive folders to manage my personal designs so they don’t get in the way. There are lots of ways a user can take care of the issue themselves. Just FYI. I will also take the time to note here that I have in the past been extremely lenient on file naming when it is submitted improperly. I have not actually disqualified someone for improper naming, despite some people being repeat offenders. I have simply re-explained it to them and, when coupled with other issues like LUA file errors, requested resubmission in the correct format.
You know what the problem is? Your engine probably isn’t large enough 
In case anyone’s wondering, the “typical” engine so far seems to be a 4-5ish liter V8. 
can we raise the power limit to 25o, maybe 28o HP?? thats what big coupes at the time did! i would be happy with 23o at least! nevermind, i did mine with 2oo, but a bit more powaaa would result in better cars, better torque spread, as we have only 3 gear automatics, and ultimately, more consistency with reality, 2oo hp is what a 5l american v8 did 1o years before, spinning to only 4,5k rpm!
23o hp is what mercedes got from its very restricted 4,5L V8 back in '78
[quote=“victorgarcia”]can we raise the power limit to 25o, maybe 28o HP?? thats what big coupes at the time did! i would be happy with 23o at least! nevermind, i did mine with 2oo, but a bit more powaaa would result in better cars, better torque spread, as we have only 3 gear automatics, and ultimately, more consistency with reality, 2oo hp is what a 5l american v8 did 1o years before, spinning to only 4,5k rpm!
23o hp is what mercedes got from its 4,5L V8 back in '78[/quote]
A typical 5.7L American V8 had 170ish HP from that era while the average 5L had 140ish HP. V8s 10 years earlier used SAE GROSS and not SAE Net which made for a massive drop in reported HP.
First off, ratings in the 60’s were gross, not net. That changed in the early 70’s to more accurately reflect what was put out at the crank with accessories (and exhaust) attached. There’s about a 20% difference between the two. From what I understand, the game rates in net. If it rates in gross, well… that means my Ardent would put out 136 HP net, which would be reasonable from a 4.2L V8.
Second, 5 liter American V8’s in the 70’s were horribly anemic due to emissions equipment. For example:
1978 Chevy 305 w/4bbl - 160 HP, 235 lb-ft torque
1978 Ford 302 w/2 bbl - 139 HP, 250 lb-ft torque
1978 Dodge/Chrysler 318 (5.2L) w/2bbl - 145 HP, torque figure unavailable
1978 AMC 304 w/2 bbl - 150 HP, torque figure unavailable
The 200 HP rating is a bit of a nod to the fact that here in Automation we like our engines powerful. It’s also to keep people from going too nuts with it, as it would be bloody historically inaccurate to simulate, say, a late 70’s Thunderbird with 300 HP from the factory. Even the 400cid (6.6L) Ford used as the biggest optional engine only put out 160HP.
Edit: aaaand… Blasters beat me to it. 
[quote=“BlastersPewPew”][quote=“victorgarcia”]can we raise the power limit to 25o, maybe 28o HP?? thats what big coupes at the time did! i would be happy with 23o at least! nevermind, i did mine with 2oo, but a bit more powaaa would result in better cars, better torque spread, as we have only 3 gear automatics, and ultimately, more consistency with reality, 2oo hp is what a 5l american v8 did 1o years before, spinning to only 4,5k rpm!
23o hp is what mercedes got from its 4,5L V8 back in '78[/quote]
A typical 5.7L American V8 had 170ish HP from that era while the average 5L had 140ish HP. V8s 10 years earlier used SAE GROSS and not SAE Net which made for a massive drop in reported HP.[/quote]
i said 1o years before
fuck american regulations, making cars worse and uglier since 1975!
but lets take mercedes and bentleys of the time as benchmark, as we are building a similar car, aren’t we? confort is heavy! but as some people already submited, i presume we cant raise the power a bit
Rolls Royce only had 189hp from their 6.75L V8 in the '70s. I think the 200HP limit is fair for a luxury coupe of this era, they were not sports cars.
The personal luxury coupe is a very American thing that IIRC predates the fuel crisis.
And here is an example of an engine within the regulations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_V8_engine#425
Edit: To get decent performance out of an 3-speed transmission, what you need is a torquey, and therefore large, engine.
and on a side note…
Looks at the Ford Aerostar replica in saved cars list. Well it might get a chance after all!!
