Bro, ONE my worst purchases led to me buying a '89 Cadillac Eldorado. Young me going off of looks alone, bought the car…completely ignoring the fact that the engine was swapped. I believe it had a 4.9 when it should’ve had the 4.5 v8. The guy told me the engine had been rebuilt🤦🏿♂️. Check engine light was on, had a push button starter…bruh smh… .and I still bought it.
Worst car purchase ever. Couldn’t smog it, couldn’t register it…I just drove it until I couldn’t no more…never again.
At that point, should have cubed it, or do the fun way and overloaded it with fireworks and just burn the car. either way you would have got some of the value out of the car.
Not all used cars are made the same; wear and tear overtime causes some parts to perform worse, and other parts to break altogether; plus, some owners like to modify their cars. The purpose of this competitions “Soft Rules” was to account for design too unrealistic for a stock car, but which could be explained as a result of the car’s age and past life.
Seeing as this segment is the slowest to grade, we’re gonna get it out of the way first. Overall, of the 25 really awesome valid entries in this contest, 17 cars incurred with some kind of penalty, usually for “unrealistic/uncharacteristic engineering” (the details of which, are explained below). But before we explore those, I should do the instabins:
This car exceeded the maximum price by a significant margin (it cost just over $3,000 once adjusted for inflation), and the creator was unable to submit a revision or replacement in time.
Which really is a shame, as this car was really well made. There’s a lot of attention to detail in it’s visual design, and it’s stats are exceptionally good; a budget-spec version of this car would’ve been a very interesting competitor in this contest!
Now, with that out of the way, let’s see who got penalized for what, and why.
Let’s start off with the most unique entry; this cute, weird little offroader right here. The car’s visual design (and forum post) portray it in a state of partial disrepair, and as having been modified in the past; but what does that mean mechanically?
Its engine, a 3.1L Pushrod I4 running cast iron everything, is fitted with individual throttle bodies, a race intake, and a pretty significant turbocharger. It makes proportionally a lot of torque (204lb/ft compared to 107hp), only revs to 2,900 RPM, and is tuned for 85.5 RON;
Front wheel drive is an odd choice for an offroader back then, but an even odder choice would be these thin, low-profile, medium compound tires. And the safety is at “standard 80’s,” which is a tad outdated for 1994 (even if the stat is still above 30). To top it off, the rear is running positive camber.
It’s safe to say, this King Snake is very far from factory condition, and has thus earned itself a 5 point unrealism penalty.
Notice that phrase, “Track Edition.” Because while this car may look like a Lexus, it bears a lot more mechanical resemblance to a Caterham, being so stripped of features that it makes a Kia Rio look like a Cadillac. And to be honest, it seems to be stripped too much even by track car standards; steel wheels, no ABS, basic 90’s safety (in 2007!), and hard tires (which are really high profile, by the way). Oh, and the brakes aren’t powerful enough to lock.
If it had been made to look like a weekend track car, it might have gotten away with some of that that shedding; but instead, it looks like a GT coupe (hell, it’s almost anachronistic). I wager it was not Wells itself, but some past owner cleaned out the internals of an H1 and took a few good spins in it. That, or this example was a base model that saw some things break over time.
Neither is really very desirable in a new car, so it walks away with a 3 point realism penalty.
On a completely unrelated note, part of its weight shedding involves it missing a radio, which is its own distinct 3 point penalty.
Once upon a time, this used to be a typical, entry-level hatchback, bearing a lot of resemblence to the Honda Civic. It would the kind of car your parents would’ve described as the perfect first car; if some past owner hadn’t messed with it.
In addition to the obvious visual mods in the photos (including spoilers), this L20 wears somewhat overpowered vented brakes, standard rate springs, and tires which are unusually low profile for their width, compared to other USDM cars of the day.
The VTEC-esque engine seems to have remained untouched, fortunately; the RPM does cut off before peak power, but power isn’t priority in a car like this anyway (and it has a nice, wide torque curve), so that can slide.
Overall, this wannabe-racecar gets a 3-point unrealism penalty for its mods.
And here’s our other wannabe-racer for today, a 2.8m sedan (probably once a midrange luxury car, given the premium interior and long wheelbase) wearing stripes, aftermarket spoilers front & rear, turbo stickers, and- hey, not gonna deduct for this, but is that wrinkle paint meant to represent a vinyl wrap? If so, clever!
But all that’s nothing in comparison to the engine, an inline-5 producing all the turbo lag you could ever want and more. Said giant turbo, as well as possibly many other parts, were probably bolted on by the previous owner- who probably had a really good time with it.
Buying someone else’s tuner car is notoriously bad idea most of the time, so let’s account for that with a 3 point unrealism penalty.
This excellent sports car comes with 2 major faults. Firstly, the engine is tuned to run on 85.6 RON. And more glaringly, this sports car is running a Hydropneumatic suspension; the least sporty suspension type in game by miles. Though this car has no other problems, these 2 flaws are just major enough to earn the car a 3 point unrealism penalty.
On an unrelated note, it’s conrods had 2% engine stress each, so it also earns a 1 point engine stress penalty.
This Muscle car is for the most part, build pretty solidly; though it does have a few wee oddities, such as its engine using a Direct-acting OHC.
But what earned the Phoenix a 1-point unrealism penalty is its front suspension, which is running positive camber. In a 30’s sports car, that would have been a common choice to make steering easier, but not in a 90’s sports car with power steering.
Ah, what a nice, practical looking wagon. It kinda resembles a Subaru Outback. A bit old but it seems to have aged well- HOLY CRAP THIS HAS 300 HORSEPOWER!?!?
Yup, this luxury wagon is actually an Australian muscle car, featuring a blue, turbocharged. 3.6L 300hp V8; which might actually be too much. It doesn’t look like anything else about the car is built to accommodate quite that much power, with its Honda-civic-width tires, regular solid discs, and a suspension tuned strongly towards comfort. This leads me to suspect that this Swallow’s engine was upgraded a tad by its previous owner, and to give it a 1 point unrealism penalty.
On an unrelated note, this was one of the few cars to gamble with premium fuel, so the house takes 1 more point from the Swallow.
For such a specialized sports car (semi space frame and everything!), the lack of a Limied-slip seems odd; maybe it broke at some point? Also, the suspension is tuned more for comfort than sportiness, and the brakes seem slightly biased rearward. The result of 20 years of wear, I guess.
Said wear makes this Sunburst 1-point less valuable (unrealism penalty) then the equivalent non-worn sunburst.
There are 2 elements that combine to give this AWD sports car a 1 point unrealism penaly: Firstly, it uses a 5 speed automatic, which only the highest-end luxury cars (which this doesn’t appear to be) were even beginning to use in its year. Secondly, its RPM cuts off before peak horsepower, hampering the Garto’s potential.
As performance-specialized as this car seems to be, a 5 speed automatic is still a bit of a stretch for the CiX-2. Also, its basic 80’s safety doesn’t seem very up to date, and- worst of all -there’s a significant amount of positive camber on the rear. It gets a 1-point unrealism penalty.
On an unrelated note, it’s pistons and conrods had 1% engine stress each, which is just enough for a 1 point engine stress penalty.
Another muscle car, featuring a 5L V8 that sends power to the… front wheels? Yeah, that seems wrong for a 250hp, 2-seater sports car of the era. Also, 6-speed manuals were for the most part only found on supercars in 1995; they’re a bit above this Mantra’s pay grade. 1 point off for you!
Another 6 speed manual on this long boi. Also, it comes with basic 80’s safety in the late 90’s; its safety score isn’t actually that bad, mind you, but it still gets a 1 point unrealism penalty for it.
The most glaring issue with this muscle sedan is the brakes, which are not powerful enough to lock (and are slightly rear biased); the other main issue is the use of adaptive dampers, which seem a bit above the Kanna’s pedigree for 1994. Also, Hard tires on a car this sport-oriented?
These issues combine to give the car a 1 point unrealism penalty.
You probably can’t see it in the photo, but this hot-hatch-esque car is running a staggered tire setup; the front wheels are 5mm wider than the rear wheels, which is really unusual for this price range. Also, the front brakes are way overpowered compared to front grip, providing a whole 3,500 more Newtons of force than the tire needs to lock. A definite 1-point unrealism penalty, here.
(And wait a minute- is that steering wheel... on the RIGHT?)
Positive front camber and (slightly rear-biased) brakes that can’t lock is the state we find this premium sedan in, and is the main cause for its 1 point unrealism penalty. Also, this car showcases a lot of turbo lag; it’s certainly not as extreme as the Stockholm’s, but it’s still pretty egregious.
On an unrelated note, there appears to be -4 quality on the engine’s top end; sounds like just enough to qualify it for a 1 point negative-quality penalty.
And another car whose brakes don’t lock at low speeds (though in this one, the front ones start to above 100mph/160kph). Sure, they aren’t very far behind, but a performance sedan (which even has ABS) should be able to do better, so that’s 1 unrealism point for worn brakes.
On an unrelated note, this was one of the few cars to gamble with premium fuel, so the house takes 1 point from the Ambrosia.
When I first imported the EHH, I recorded it running positive camber like the Ibis Phoenix, and gave it a 1 point penalty. But now, as I re-imported it to double check, I see 0 camber on both front and rear. I presume, then, that the first import must’ve glitched out, and have removed the penalty
Next up, we’ll try to make up for these lost points, by having Nathan serenade them with cool points. Will the penalized cars be likeable enough to counteract their faults? We’ll have to see…
It was available from before the 1999 facelift(whether it was since the introduction in 1995, I cannot say for sure, but at least 1996-1997). And it didn’t last long after the facelift, I don’t think it even lasted until the mux update in 2001
Rear biased brakes is not optimal, because if the rear locks up before the front it can result in the rear end sliding out on braking. More or less the same thing that happens when you do a handbrake turn.
I see. It means that the grip would allow for having better brakes. Unlike if you have shitty tyres where you can upgrade brakes all you want but still have the same stopping distances because of brakes locking up.
The dotted lines represent the maximum amount of force the brakes could apply to the wheels without making them break traction with the ground and slide (on a flat, asphalt surface); The solid lines show that the brakes aren’t capable of delivering that amount of force, meaning the car can’t stop as well as it could be able to.
To my knowledge, any car these days should come from the factory able to lock it’s own tires in optimal conditions, especially a performance-based car like this, and especially since the car has ABS to counteract the downsides of locking. This used car can’t, which means its brakes have probably worn down over time. So, the car is 1 point less desirable to Nathan because it’s brakes aren’t in optimal condition (and because there’s a chance he may soon have to pay to replace them himself).
(Also, one of my observations was that the car’s “hard long life” tires seemed too low-end for a car this nice. If its original tires were nicer, that would mean its stock grip- and stock braking ability -would have had to be even more powerful when the car was new.)
Not sure what to say about the brakes (I thought the front brake force was much stronger than the rear), however if I may comment about the design choices. The car was built as somewhat of a budget Mercedes SLK which also doesn’t have an LSD and had a suspension that was tuned more for comfort cruising. I was actually quite surprised as well how many “sports” cars don’t have LSDs, especially of all the body styles in the world the roadsters (including the Boxster, 1.5 Miata, Z4, Lotus Elise, etc.) which is true even today.
On your car, front brake force is much stronger than rear brake force. But rear brake force is stronger relative to rear grip than front force is relative to front grip, meaning the rear wheels are more likely to lock up.
Also, I do admit that the locking differential is probably the weakest of that car’s unrealism issues; I got more of an S2000 impression from the car than an SLK one, so that may have influenced my perception of it. (also, I’d thought the Miata did have an LSD, but maybe it was just certain trims…)
Yes, the hard long life tires are not stock. The originals were medium compounds. Owner is a bit of a cheapskate. Also, I wouldn’t expect a car with 220k miles to have completely unworn brakes
That’s the gotcha part! It had the looks and some engineering choices to fool a teenager that it was a true sports car but more than anything it was meant as something you would drive at the speed limit down the coast of Lake Ontario.
No chance in hell that I could make something to compete with the S2000 at this price but a budget cruiser? That was doable…
