Man With a Van Challenge! (Second Review)

[Madrias]

Wait a minute... Was my safety really that bad that you're saying I need to haul around caskets? And here I thought 55.5 was actually kinda respectable. Now maybe I didn't go for advanced safety, even though it was in the budget, but then again, maybe I should have. Usually I do and it ends up making my car too expensive or harming the other stats significantly. This time, I chose not to use Advanced and used Standard and bit myself square in the bottom.

Well, looks like me and my 'coffin on wheels' have to go back to the drawing board.

[DoctorNarfy]

Haha. That's not what I meant. I was just poking fun at the fact that it looked like a hearse. but I find that advanced safety is pretty much always a better option. For the same cost, you can get something lighter and more safe.

[strop]

I'm with titleguy here: I scored top 5 in a balance oriented, UTILITY based challenge?

That frantic fortnight of building utility vehicles for the beta release must have paid off

[Leonardo9613]

6. Baltazar-Andromeda. -Just Barely not making the cut, The Andromeda was quite good all around, but failed to be dynamic enough to win.
434.17

Let me get this straight, my car didn't make it to the review/ top 5 because of something that is utterly irrelevant to a van and that, according to the op, wouldn't be scored at all?

If that is the case, I must say, the op was misleading, at the very least. And before anyone thinks that I tailor made my car to the rules, my original prototype was even slower, so I had to make the engine bigger in order to pass the minimum speed rules.

[DoctorNarfy]

Perhaps I should have worded it better. By "Dynamic" I simply meant, it didn't succeed in any one thing more than the competition. It was too "Middle of the road" if you will.

[cpufreak101]

17. Galt-V Series -Even with generous Overdrive, only 3 of the Van's 5 Speed transmission can ever be
touched.
407.77

wow, i scored higher than i thought for something i threw together for a design test, and at least it gives it good tuning capabilities (for anyone crazy lol)

[strop]

Perhaps I should have worded it better. By "Dynamic" I simply meant, it didn't succeed in any one thing more than the competition. It was too "Middle of the road" if you will.

From my perspective, Leo's and my approaches tend to differ, even when both of us are 'taking the challenge seriously': Leo tends to make better balanced cars, whereas I tend to build to max out the heavier weighted characteristics, often at the expense of other characteristics that still play a role. In the past, Leo's approach has turned out better, but the balancing here may simply favour my approach, especially with the factors Utility involves.

[Lordred]

Knew I should of spent more time fine tuning, or perhaps even have used MPFI over DFI, but ROLE PLAY....

[Leonardo9613]

Okay. I was writing a big text on balance of challenges and stuff, but whatever. TL,DR would be, no one cares about one single thing, and van owners and drivers care a lot about fuel and service costs, as those basically eat away their earnings.

[Microwave]

Yes, coming last (more or less), just as I expected!

Van without door handles ftw

[koolkei]

hey im in the top 10 on my very first challenge on this game.

that's not so bad is it?
although i kinda regret not using the original 2.6l turbo engine that makes much more power, more efficient, and lighter
all just for the sake of 'drivability'. which i was overating it.

i even had to resubmit because the van was too slow. shorter, more agressive gearing, and 2 notch up on the fuel mixture, and a compression notch up later.


my van barely made the rules...... literally only borderline slow.
i've gone ahead and did it. i reverse stropped.....

[JasonPoland]

Yay, PolMot still sucks! Who's surprised? Not me...hooray for shortening the van!!!

[Lordred]

Since I was not top 5, here are all of the stats for the Elephant.

[Zabhawkin]

Here is mine.

mwav stats.png (276.22 KiB) Viewed 4998 times

[koolkei]

since i never shown my van either.





had it used the turbo engine (without optimization tweaking, simply an engine swap)





like.... mine is super comfortable, much more easier to drive, have higher prestige, super low fuel consumption, lower emissions
(11.42km/l = 8.75 l/100km = 32.25 MPG US) (10.62km/l = 9.41l/100km = 29.99MPG US)
high safety, high practicality, is pretty light (why is mine called heavy and slow, when it's only slow?)

literally...... the thing that's holding me back is the comparatively weak engine......

so much regret