Best in Class Engines [I4, 1982] [REVIEWS]

[strop]

I'm suddenly getting this image of a card burning up and releasing smoke, while screaming like R2D2 when he's been shot...

Considering that I've been playing the classic X-Wing Starfighter (recently rebundled and repatched on Steam), and recently got my R2 unit fried in the midst of a hairy dogfight, this image is particularly vivid and therefore hilarious.

I myself thought about a way to do this and decided, I will not show you anything about the engine, so much as a brief for the car that the engine has been fit to!

Having well and truly shed their image as an also-ran muscle car wannabe maker from the UK by the late 70s, Armada wished to continue their visionary trend of More Powerful Than Reasonable sports cars for all kinds of (lower end) budgets. Struggling to keep their head above water after gambling heavily on developing multivalve OHC technology in smaller engines, Armada somehow persisted in their self-limiting attempt to balance carbs with boost for well over a decade.

By the early 80s, a new market was capturing mass appeal: the practical but sporty, compact but family-friendly Hot Hatch sector, popularised by the Golf GTi. This represented a big gap and therefore big opportunity for Armada, who were desperate to capitalise on their investment which sputtered slightly when the Armada Talon, with its 200hp 18v SOHC turbo i6, attained a cult following, but while ridiculously quick, its extreme hardcore driver status scared many customers off.

Enter the Armada Fore:

Fore - GTi-2.png (205.85 KiB) Viewed 5781 times

Every bit the hot hatch, with its FF drivetrain, perky turbo 1.6L i4, MacPherson front and torsion beam rear, seating 5 with a sizeable boot, but as it was designed to be a Golf beater (the Golf GTi Mk.1 engine eventually put out a fairly hefty 160hp), it had more power. This was a car that wouldn't burn a hole in your wallet, wouldn't chug an oil field dry, yet managed the 0-100km/h in under 8 seconds. Would it stack up and become one of Armada's mainstays? Only time would tell.

[Rossriders]

I'm unsure if I want to enter this or not in spite of having 3 engines that could fit for every category.

I guess since, well it's probably been said already about how for one, while it's something for an engine to be economical, problem being just how it'll perform in actual testing with a vehicle.

Not to mention I'm trying to find a path of highest bhp while keeping overall costs down, while I'm probably making what I could (then again every time I do, I see what Strop managing to do better than me), I'm trying to do so while keeping the engine N/A and on carbs given the price jack when using MFI.

Almost makes me wish there's a community challenge in the very late 80s or early 90s to play around with even SPFI but that's just me rambling. I may just submit to see how (baddly) I'll stack up, then again last time I entered a challenge, I managed to finish far higher than expected because I just decided to 'be myself', or rather what my company would put out.

We'll see. Interesting challenge none the less, if nothing else, gives me some more reasons to keep experimenting (even though been doing just that when I can).

[strop]

Just as a quick response, rossriders, it's fairly easy to make a turbo carb engine with these regulations that tops 200bhp without going completely nuts on the sliders nor breaks the engine, but that's not what I've done: I've also just put out something my other company would have done. I don't expect it to do that well.

Using NA will improve responsiveness, costs and reliability but obviously lose a lot of potential HP. I honestly don't know how it'll balance vs turbo.

[nialloftara]

Are open beta engines compatible with this challenge?

[Packbat]

Looking at the changelog, I don't see anything specifically affecting I4s - it might work, but it might not.

[TrackpadUser]

There are a few changes with the "flow", namely the ability to change the year within a family.

That might cause problems.

[VicVictory]

I also haven't switched over to the open beta yet. I didn't have the exact date of it starting, and it was a gamble on my part to open this contest.

I will be shortening the deadline to 24 hours from now because I do not anticipate anyone else entering. Probably not that many people playing the old build right now, now that there is kind of a "craze" to play the open beta.

[Packbat]

The onboard graphics is so shitty that it isn't even worth it to attempt to run Automation on it.

Belatedly: how terrible is it? I have an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 on my laptop, and the game is playable for me with minimal graphics settings ... and nothing else running ... especially if I reduce the resolution....

[Rossriders]

Just as a quick response, rossriders, it's fairly easy to make a turbo carb engine with these regulations that tops 200bhp without going completely nuts on the sliders nor breaks the engine, but that's not what I've done: I've also just put out something my other company would have done. I don't expect it to do that well.

Using NA will improve responsiveness, costs and reliability but obviously lose a lot of potential HP. I honestly don't know how it'll balance vs turbo.

I know it's possible, but maybe I'm being a bit too price sensitive since while I can make a turbo with such power without too much an issue, I guess I'm just trying to get maximum performance (be it with fuel economy, a balanced setup or outright power) while keeping the engines sensible.

Hell, with what I'm going to submit, I tried to run the Fuel Air mix as lean as I can. Like you did, I'm putting out an engine my company would build at that time (or rather reused from their varied days in Formula 3).

It'll be interesting though, seeing if there's even an attempt at balance...we'll see.

[Absurdist]

Ah, damn, would have liked to enter this. I was away, so I don't really have the time tonight to do it. Next one

Interesting to see what people send in.

[nerd]

The onboard graphics is so shitty that it isn't even worth it to attempt to run Automation on it.

Belatedly: how terrible is it? I have an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 on my laptop, and the game is playable for me with minimal graphics settings ... and nothing else running ... especially if I reduce the resolution....

HD 3200. Technically it could RUN automation, but no one in their right mind ever would run automation on it.

[VicVictory]

The onboard graphics is so shitty that it isn't even worth it to attempt to run Automation on it.

Belatedly: how terrible is it? I have an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 on my laptop, and the game is playable for me with minimal graphics settings ... and nothing else running ... especially if I reduce the resolution....

HD 3200. Technically it could RUN automation, but no one in their right mind ever would run automation on it.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm insane.

(last laptop had an HD3200. Current one has an HD4400. I don't have a desktop or dedicated gaming computer. No room in my house or money in my wallet for that shizz.)

[VicVictory]

The competition is closed and the results are in!

Due to not filling all spots, I will only be reviewing the top engine in each category, and not selecting an "overall best". Also, remember when looking at the different categories, they are graded on different scales. You cannot directly compare the scores between engines of different categories.

Economy Engines
8th - Rolev Automotive - R16/82 16vE - 1.6L N/A 16v DOHC - "Tragic reliability matched only by tragic construction time." - 0.5442 points
7th - Daiki Automotive - 4EE SO-20FCN - 1.9L N/A 16v SOHC - "Lovely torque curve can't sweep high maintenance costs under the rug." - 0.7761 points
6th - Ponni Motor Corporation (POMOCO) - WorkMoke WM4-4 - "1.6L N/A 16v SOHC - "It's all about playing the averages. This one's on the wrong side of every average." - 0.8215 points
5th - Fuentes Motors - 82L4-83 - 1.8L N/A 12v SOHC - "The most powerful engine of the group. Unfortunately kind of expensive to build and keep up." - 0.8256 points
4th - Žnoprešk Avto - ZL4.4-1611 16Eco - 1.6 N/A 16v SOHC - "The end times are nigh. Znopresk didn't make the least powerful engine here." - 0.8558 points
3rd - Infinity Motor - P-series 1P-FD - 1.7L N/A 8v OHV - "Cheap doesn't always mean good economy. Also, the least powerful of the group." - 0.8869 points
(Benchmark) - Ardent Motors - Cygnus Sparrow (Ph1) CE4-B - 1.6L N/A 8v OHV - "Just... wake me when it's over." - 0.9158 points
2nd - LHE - X4 M82-E63 - 1.7L N/A 8v OHV - "Even more boring than the Ardent. Thankfully a lot more efficient." - 0.9985 points

And the ECONOMY winner is...

Northern Motor Company - Push-button 4R65 - 1.6L N/A 8v OHV - 1.0497 points

Balanced Engines
7th - Toyoko Cars - TC4 S418i - 1.8 N/A 16v DOHC - "Toyoko decided that this engine needed to be held together by gold plated EVERYTHING." - 0.8805 points
6th - SOFA - Económico Impulsar 1900 - 1.9L Turbo 16v DOHC - "Hit the gas and feel it... not go." - 1.5253 points
5th - K's Works - IL4C-18te - 1.8L Turbo 16v SOHC - "The most powerful by far. Also the most expensive to build and maintain, and very likely to fly apart." - 1.6218 points
4th - GSI - Tsunami 4D16T - 1.6L Turbo 16v DOHC - "Turbo lag and high costs. Yum, my favorite." - 1.6814 points
3rd - Seishido Motors - QGM16II 180SN1 - 1.8L N/A 16v SOHC - "A good all-arounder done in by production costs and mediocre efficiency." - 1.6835 points
2nd - Kirk Automotive - 4A-Type 4A4B-T - 1.9L Turbo 16v DOHC - "TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQUE! (Plus insane service costs)" - 1.8106 points

And the BALANCED winner is...

Astana - Panther IN4 1.8L Standard - 1.8L N/A 16v DOHC - 1.8185 points

Sporty Engines
4th - Baltazar Automóveis - Ekranoplan BOOSCHT - 1.8L Turbo 16v DOHC - "I've owned entire Baltazar cars cheaper than this engine. Then again, squeezing 300+ horsepower out of less than 2 liters." - 0.2933 points
3rd - Bogliq Automotive - Beta 4 4B16E - 1.6L N/A 16v DOHC - "Even without a turbo, does a decent job of keeping up with the big boys." - 0.7151 points
2nd - Armada Motors - Fore GTi Turbo - 1.6L Turbo 16v SOHC - "Kind of expensive to maintain, but always fun to drive with a motor that is on the edge of trying to kill you." - 0.7184 points

and the SPORTY winner is ...

PAW - Sprite LS - 1.8L N/A 8v SOHC - 0.8590 points

I'll try to do the reviews over the next few days. Congrats to the winners!

Edit: Corrected PAW's description. Not sure why Packbat said it was an LS Turbo if there's no Turbo on it.

[TrackpadUser]

And the ECONOMY winner is...

Northern Motor Company - Push-button 4R65 - 1.6L N/A 8v OHV - 1.0497 points

Yay!!

Super cheap engine that is still decently economical FTW.

[Leonardo9613]

Perfect result from the BOOSCHT engine. 300+ hp from 1.9 litres in 1982, using fancy fuel injection methods, could only mean a terrible result

Thanks, Vic and sorry for not taking the challenge as seriously as I should have, but well, isn't this all for fun?