I already switched back to stable. IIRC the car was a couple hundred below budget. Al Rilma has some neat features, but the bugs are too many.
Iâm just waiting for the new campaign to come out. I miss it and I canât bother to wait for an hour to update it on just one of my PCs and then have those âcloud out of syncâ errors.
Iâll be honest this scared me at first! I thought these were the cars that were left!!
@Texaslav
@Musicman27
@moroza
@Dog959
@discord entry
Deleting and re-importing the cars worked, for most at the first, for the others at the 2nd or 3rd attempt.
All cars are now correctly priced.
3 Likes
Since all cars are now displayed with the correct values, and I did the other calculations already, I can start with what you all are waiting for.
REVIEWS Part 1 of 2
Rank 11: M300T Alltrek by @VladTheImpala
The M300 leaves a lot to be desired, despite some good efforts. The styling is ok, and it shows a general sense for shapes and sizes, but it is really not a refined build there. The total fixture cound is 63, which is not much, considering it also has a simple interior that looks like straight from 1980. But, better this than none, although interiors are not judged. Maybe the very old mod body with ⌠questionable⌠quality to todays standards is to blame, too.
In the engineering part, we can complain about horrendous consumption and service costs, both high priorities. and the car also fails at reliability. A less aggressive engine tuning would have improved a lot, it peaks directly before the rev limiter hits. A third row with +3 seats are nice, although while the engine is a techfest, a four speed automatic seems antique. The comfort is low. In the end, an outstanding practicality, acceptable safety and brisk performance are not enough to stand against the competition, although the last rank does not mean that the car is junk.
Rank 10: Discord Entry, Toivonen Sisu
Cheapest car at 26.900, and also very small, but more to that later. Cast iron block with alu head seems not really bringing an advantage over an all alloy engine. The compound turbo is smooth. Engine runs very lean, resulting in a relatively good economy at 6,7L, but servicing is a pain at 1.321$. Sportiness is good, and the accelleration rocket-like, but the top speed is surprisingly low at 236 kph. The comfort is poor, and the comfort also suffers from the car being too tiny. Not only is the practicality compromised, it also ruins the looks. The fixture work is good, the design works. But the whole car looks like squeezed together between two trucks. An otherwise coherent design that would have profited from a size up on the wheelbase for that body. Interior work is good. Quite an improvement compared to rank 11 and very close to rank 9. The very low prestige finally made the difference there.
Rank 9: Avin 589 by @toxicnet
The design concept is good, but it would have needed a lot more time in the oven, the interior is simple but fitting. It is hard to understand how 226 fixtures and therefore a lot of time and effort ended up looking quite bland. The reliability however is excellent and the best of the field. Consumption is pleasing at a good 6,6 liter, but servicing is causing a hole in the wallet. The tiny 1.4 engine seems squeezed out to the last bolt, and the performance is good for a real life car but a bit sluggish in this competition. Turbo kicks in hard, this was not judged by skipping drivability to not give superchargers an advantage, since they are already favorized in service cost in this stage of the game version.
Rank 8: Trosteinya Tiegan RS by @Musicman27
The modern looks indicate sportiness, although the car is not as sporty as the Toivonen that looks a lot more average in temper. Straight line performance is convincing. The car is a drunkard at 11,5 liter and servicing is also on the bad side. Practicality is low. What the car does offer are satisfying comfort and good safety, the Tiegan also wins the prestige ranking. The looks are actually very nice considering that an old messy body is used, and it looks consistent to the general tone of this entrant. But, needlessly overpowered brakes, a recirculating ball steering (in 2001, really?), standard springs, fancy flow optimized aerodynamics and an engine running on damn ultimate? I actually changed the fuel to the allowed one since I assumed, in your favor, that it might be an import error, since after changing that, the engine still did not retard ignition.
Rank 7: Arashi Emeraude SR-4
This car scores in the sportiness ranking, but straight line performance is not as good as the stiff suspension would make buyers think. The service cost is horrendous at 1612$, but what really kills this car is the terribly low comfort. The design is stunning on the first look, but a bit rough around the edges when you look close at it, a fate that many replicas share. For the judging, I must ignore the fact that I own Galant VR-4s myself and that I am a Mitsubishi collector. Instead, I ranked it 7 out of 10. since⌠the creativity is of course lacking a bit although I must say, nice try at a Galant EA0. The engineering doesn´t stand out positively in any category, and some are even completely failed.
Rank 6: Mutsuko Premier Blower
Retro designs are a risky thing, either you hit or miss. I sense some Mitsuoka influence here. While I absolutely like the idea, the execution is ⌠not selling it. The weird bars on the doors should have been a lot smoother and more tasteful, and the many small round headlights look like the eyes of a spider, you know what I mean I guess. Still, some points for creativity.
The engineering shines in some areas, with the most impressive archievement being 4,9 LITER CONSUMPTION. A clear win in a high priority, congratulations! We continue with affordable servicing, fairly good comfort and very solid reliability. The price seems fair for 27.700$. So, why not in the top 5 then? Well, as I said, I really like the design idea but the car suffers from a half-baked execution of it. This car would totally deserve a rework when you got more skill and experience at advanced design work. The safety is very low, and so I guess that the dealers might have to sell the truly underwhelming performance as an advantage. Just 214 kph top speed were ⌠not competetive on the German Autobahn even in 2001 considering we have power sedans from the kind of a C32 AMG here. Still, my compliments for dressing down the whole competition in the running cost category.
7 Likes
Hey, iâm just happy to be here! Not dead last is a W in my book!
2 Likes
I think you might be looking at my first submission rather than my resubmission, I did think it was a bit slow for a buyer that wanted it for driving on the autobahn so gave it a bit more power and got it to 239kph. Given that was the only change so styling and safety are still poor I donât think itâd change the ranking much so itâs not a big deal and I should probably make it clearer if I do a resub in future.
Now I look at it those indicators almost look like fangs too.
ah crap, maybe all the re-importing messed this up, it´s still quite of a gamble to run a challenge on Al Rilma.
But, you are right, the gap to rank 5 is quite large, that would not have changed the final ranking. I made the cut at 5 to 6 because these two bunches are quite close together.
2 Likes
nice to know i built a car you love and own! i must admit i focused entirely too much on the design aspects and not so much of the stats but as my first challenge im happy to not be last!!!
3 Likes
Yeah⌠I mightâve f-ed up in my departmentâŚ
So I made a decent car that just missed the market? This is becoming a trend for me. I need to work on this I suppose.
Minor mishap maybe: No tagging for car 7 and 6
Reviews part 2
Rank 5: DMI B250K by @06DPA
A really nice design that looks like an alternate universe 2001 Lexus IS to me. Maybe its the transparent taillights, or the GS-like headlights.. anyway, the car looks good and accurate for 2001.
The car also pleases with excellent comfort, a thing Mr. Kluwe would definitely like. The accelleration isn´t impressive, but the top speed is. Handling is fun. Downsides? Practicality is not the best, to put it mildly, and the cars running cost are not the most expensive but also nothing to praise, the rest is average. A solid car that competes with the big names in the challenges.
Rank 4: Zephorus KSL 3.0 Supercharged by @Riley
In striking distance of the next-best entry, the Zephorus aims for the bronze medal. The KSL is clearly an older design, with a new and modern front end for 2001. This looks a bit inconsistent, the rest is clearly stuck in the 90s. although the car definitely isn´t ugly by any means. The prestige is among the best, and the practicality too, and I have no idea why. An excellent comford adds up stunning performance, as we know from a Zephorus. From these complex machines of this brand we also know an at best middling reliability, and the running cost are high. Still fair priced at $28.700. A car that serves all stereotypes of Zephorus I have, and a car worth considering to buy for Mr. Kluwe.
Rank 3: Waldersee Ritter T28K by @Texaslav
Speaking of big names, Texaslav is one of the most successful competitors in this community, so nobody is surprised that I have a lot to praise about this one, right?
Starting with the design that has it all: Period correctness, detail quality, creativity. To say that the Ritter is fast is an understatement: It is a rocket. 5,3 seconds accelleration even smokes the already fast Toivonen Sisu and M300T. What fits to it is the sport-tuned suspension, it outclasses the competition in sportiness by a wide margin. So, why not the winner and just in the top three? The sport lesson for the competition comes at the price of low comfort, the reliability is average, safety is low, running costs quite expensive, especially the consumption. The good prestige can´t save it. Still, for 27.200 one of the cheaper cars here and a damn good one.
Rank 2: Paige Symphony 2.5 SE by @donutsnail
Quite a large and heavy car, therefore practical and superbly comfortable. A bit surprising is the use of an oldfashioned Roots-blower. The engine is also among the more relaxed ones, but in return, the running costs are low, and the top speed is good thanks to the aerodynamic shape of the car. The design is good and very complex, I love the rear more than the front. Almost full points for creativity and detailing as well as period correctness, since the whole car is meant to be a bit futuristc. The car excels at safety and leaves a very strong impression in reliability. Weaknesses: Accelleration could be faster and the sportiness is not really competetive with the best in that matter. On the other hand, you get a lot for $27.300 here. A well-made highway glider that did put a lot of pressure on the winner, and defeated the very attractive Ritter.
Rank 1: DCMW Faras Standard Six
We usually know very exalted hyper luxury rides from DCMW. So I was very curious about an affordable and mass produced car of that brand. The exterior is very conservative, almost more a Nordwagen than a DCMW, but created with absurd detail attention in both interior and exterior. Everything is smooth, consistent, realistic and it still features uniqe DCMW styling touches known from the luxury boats. As usual for a moroza car, the performance is absurdly strong, this car is almost as fast as the Ritter in accelleration and surpasses it at top speed. The key to success is that this car has no obvious weakness. Sportiness is on par with the Zephorus and the Toivonen, only beaten by the Ritter. Downsides? Average prestige, servicing is mediocre too and the comfort is compromised, but still competetive. It is more a question of taste for Mr. Kluwe between the DCMW and the Paige.
Honorable mentions for drivability
I did not judge it to not disadvantage turbos, that seem to have a pentaly there while the servicing of superchargers seems to be less painful than that of turbochargers. Well, the G-Charger from VW proves otherwise in the real lifeâŚ
The Zephorus has a drivability of 90! That is some archievement. The lowest has our winner, the DCMW. So, if I had put that criteria into consideration⌠the Paige is a bit better at 65. A bit ironic that the DCMW does not use a turbo and scores that low with a Roots blower.
From drivability, @Dog959 with the Mutsuko (84!) and the discord entry (still very good 79) would have profited.
Now let´s see what rank uses which system.
1: Roots-SC
2: Roots-SC
3: Roots-SC
4: Roots-SC
5: Centrifugal-SC
6: Screw-SC
7: Turbo Charger (2)
8: Roots-SC
9: Turbo Charger (1)
10: Compound TC
11: Turbo Charger (1)
So, this means that the top 5 all use Roots-Supercharger - weird! Also, turbos seem to be not really have been favourized by the rules. Maybe the game is still too imbalanced there, and I should have left serivce cost out of consideration
I hope you had fun building the cars and enjoyed the reviews. I won´t host a TvS again at the current state of the game and wait for another update.
10 Likes
Thank you for hosting! This was probably my second time placing in the top half of a competition ever, so itâs a win on my end. GG everyone.
It does seem like service cost punishes turbos much more than drivability does
2 Likes
*J/*I guess my hidden genius in making seemingly terrible engineering choices, is too much for your inferior earth-native brains to handle.
GG everyone!