Vintage Tuner Cup Judging
Phase 2; 1981-1988
First I have to say that this was truly a difficult division to judge. With only a few exceptions, all of the cars were significant improvements over both stock and default, and several were just sheer fun! Like I said last night, four cars stand out - if you're in the top four, DAMN good job! Even some of the cars outside the top four are quite good!
Again I picked Infineon as my control course. I tested each car extensively elsewhere though, and each car also ran unpublished control laps at GVS.
Here are my impressions, in ascending order.
Setsunakute's Honda Civic 1500 3dr.
2'03.256
I don't mean to be unkind, but this car is a lot like biting into a burned piece of chicken only to discover that it's cold and raw inside - not very pretty, and underdone.
Under the default settings, it's relatively balanced and easy to drive, but that's mostly because it's slower than a Panzer drive through a Russian winter.
The tuning (which is extremely mild) produces near-as-makes-no-difference no improvement at all. There MIGHT be less understeer under throttle, but there is DEFINITELY
more understeer at turn-in and under braking. That aside, this could have been the most brilliant suspension setup ever produced by man, but there'd be no way to tell because there's not enough power in the car to provoke any extreme response. To continue the analogous theme, the tuner brought a knife to a gunfight. N3 tires are fine - there's no need for anything grippier in a car this anemic - but it could easily have handled more power even on road rubber, with the addition of a few more parts and a solid gearset. Overall, this seems more of an imitative tune than an innovative tune, and what it imitates isn't all that great - it feels like it could be any riced-out Civic at any dowtown stoplight anywhere in the world. You half expect to see a brown-black stain on the rear bumper above the tailpipes from too-rich AFR. To quote Richard Hammond again, it may be ugly, but at least ... it's slow?
50/100
GT40MkII's Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z Concept
1'37.601
*note* The tuner didn't include BBC settings in his build sheet. If he provides the settings, I will re-test the car.
The
default settings for this beast are driveable, but pretty rough; it's plagued by hook-in-the-nose understeer when off the throttle or below the breakaway threshold, and sharp, snap-happy power-over when above the breakaway threshold - the power-over is mostly limited to tire squeal though, rather than wheelspin. The problem with the
tuned version is that not much has changed. The car is still frenetic in a straight line, but only the merest bit more precise through the corners thanks to the harder springrates, but those same hard springrates are responsible for rear-end breakaway becoming more prone to wheelspin, rather than controlable squeal. The dampers haven't been altered from default at all, so nothing has really changed at turn-in, or over curbing, which, despite the heft of the car, can still send her up at a 45-degree angle. It seems a lot could be done that wasn't - altered LSD settings and more thorough suspension work the most noticeable omissions. The gearing could also stand to be longer through third. That said, it scores a bit better than the Civic because the tuner was brave enough to tackle a 500hp beast, and the result, while flawed, is driveable.
60/100
Rotary Junkie's Toyota Celica GT-Four (ST165)
1'39.272
It's important to note that this is where the results start to become closer. This is a driveable, relatively decently-tuned car, but it has some flaws. The car with
default settings is, like most GT4 AWD cars, predictable and grippy, with a strong tendency towards understeer. It's of interest in this case that the default settings on this Celica are identical in every way to the competitor's Celica save for the increased chassis rigidity. This Celica, in default trim, ran slower laptimes with more understeer overall than its otherwise-identical twin.
Tuned, it's hard to make a call. The builder seems to have employed a "breakaway at all cost" strategy, which has produced mixed results. The brake balance creates rotation under braking, which is good from slower speeds, but can actually be overkill when braking from high speeds. Rotation at entry would normally be a good thing, but the combination of AWD's tendency to reassert grip sharply and the counterintuitive front toe settings combine to throw the car out of shape at turn-in. As soon as the driver gets off the brakes, whether he's already steering, or then tries to turn in, he's met with SEVERE understeer, significantly worse than default. If he's created a lot of rotation under breaking, this can manifest as hard snap. If not, he still is forced to lift or brake to correct, causing exit speed to suffer badly compared to this car's more predictable competitor. The understeer carries through the first stages of corner exit throttle, but does, thankfully, transition to a more balanced state as speed increases, due to the rear wing's low AoA. The decision to reapply weight to the rear of the car may actually cause harm as well, exacerbating the tendency to snap from rear-end breakaway. The VCD seems to be channelling too much torque to the front, causing grip reassertion to be more severe than needed. This may sound like a serious set of flaws, but really, it's just a complicated explanation for factors that are, in the end, relatively controlable. This Celica, while slower at GVS than its competitor, actually ran marginally quicker at Infineon since braking from high speeds was much less of an issue and the intent to create breakaway was more fulfillable. In the end, it's a decent tune where a few ideas have been taken too far.
75/100
dimplz' RUF BTR
1'34.453
This was an odd one, and I won't be surprised if I score this car much higher than anyone else. I was initially inclined to rate it pretty low, but careful consideration, and a SEVERELY thrilling time attack session at Infineon fished it out of the bottom of the barrel. First off, one must remember that this is a RUF. It climbs to incomprehensible speeds in the straights and has trouble slowing enough for turns, where it loves to toss its rear-end out harder than a Vegas prostitute. The
default settings made this obvious. GVS wasn't pretty. The multitude of braking zones from high speeds left it a little frustrating.
Tuned, this did actually improve. Braking distances themselves didn't improve, but the tendency to go tail-out when lifting to prepare for throttle diminished significantly. This manifested itself at Infineon, where high-speed braking zones were nearly nonexistent. Here, it was bloody FUN! It was far and away the fastest as well. I have a feeling the BBC settings staying default may have been deliberate. Without downforce or LSD-adjustable torque on deceleration, running brake force any higher would have been massively destabilizing. This, though brings us to the reason it hasn't scored higher. Yes, it's a RUF and will always be hard to drive, even well-tuned. And yes, it improved noticeably over default. The problem is that two VERY useful elements have been ignored - the LSD and downforce. I know there's a strong belief that "wings are ugly", but on a car that needs so much stabilizing and so much help on the brake side, why not use it? The LSD is noticeably absent as well - a multitude of issues could have been improved more than they were by including it. Despite that, it DID improve over default, more so than the cars ranking below it, and is fun to drive on tracks that don't require braking from upwards of 170mph.
78/100
mafia_boy's Toyota Celica GT-Four (ST165)
1'39.323
This car is solid! In
default form, as mentioned in its competitor's review, is a hair better thanks to a little more chassis flexibility.
Tuned though, it's significantly better. Instead of relying on breakaway to produce more driveability, the tuner has opted to strike an overall balance. Braking, corner entry, apex, and exit flow seamlessly together with good throttle command the only skill needed to ward off understeer, which is somewhat less noticeable at all times than in the default tune. This is likely due to a less restrictive LSD accel profile and more rear-biased torque distribution. The gearing is mostly solid, though it might could have been a bit closer in lower gears, and even with relatively high rear downforce for an understeer-prone car, the aero balance doesn't seem to be a problem. The only thing that ranks this car lower than the other the quattro is that it's much less of an improvement over both stock and default than the third AWD in the division.
84/100
Greycap's Audi quattro
1'39.863
This is an ambitious project. The quattro is widely known to be one of the most stubbornly understeer-prone cars in the game, and among the most resistant to tuning. In
default, this was, to say the least, readily apparent. Abundant grip was made irrelevant by horrible, crippling understeer that left cornering speeds painfully slow.
Tuned, there was a noticeable difference - in a car this difficult to tune, any noticeable difference is a BIG accomplishment. Understeer, though still present, was much less hobbling, and the tuner acheived this without sacrificing the cosmic levels of grip. The body seemed a bit more prone to roll, dive, and squat, but it didn't seem to have any negative effect, and indeed is partially the reason why both power-under from the apex and sustained yaw-under were so much less problematic. It hasn't reached the podium though, because while it may be an improvement in a chassis where improvement is hard-won, it still doesn't have the fun-to-drive factor of the podium finishers, or even quite the cornering manners of the closest Celica. Still though, a fantastic tune on a stubborn car!
88/100
VTiRoj's Toyota Supra 3.0 Turbo A
1'40.570
It bears pointing out first that this is, overall, the best handling car in its division. The reason it hasn't taken first or second though is that its
default settings are shockingly good - quick and responsive with very mild understeer that rarely demands lift, and mild, controlable power-oversteer.
The
tuned version corrects all of these problems. Understeer is practically nonexistent, and power oversteer is easier to modulate to the point where 95 times out of a 100 it will be an asset rather than a flaw. The balance, is, in a word, perfect. All that said, this car probably could have captured First Place had the tuner been a bit more ambitious. The very mild power menu is understandable in a car known for high-power misbehavior, but on a solid suspension setup like this, with a bit of gearing and LSD work, and possibly some downforce, it could easily handle an extra 100 horses. The fact remains that it's the best car here in overall feel, and stands as its builder's very first foray into competitive tuning - this earns it a podium finish. Great car!
90/100
ND 4 Holden Spd's Buick GNX
1'38.121
Wow! For a frontheavy hunk of Detroit rolling iron, this thing can DANCE!
Default, I was also surprised by its potential prowess. It was definitely prone to some pretty sharp power-over, but it never felt like it was going to snap back on me. There
was definitely some understeer when the throttle fell below the breakaway threshold though, but it was never too much to handle, and turn-in was still surprisingly responsive.
Tuned, everything feels completely refined. I'd not have known I was driving such a behemoth had it not been for the three acres of hood stretching out in front of the windscreen. Power-over is MUCH easier to harness and make use of, and understeer is nearly gone thanks to an assertive front toe profile. The car's only real weak point is a sacrifice made by using that toe profile - it becomes a BIT twitchy at the nose at high speeds, but the car is so hefty that the twitchiness is never destabilizing, even with astronomically strong rear brakes. The power seems just-so; it's enough to make it the third-fastest car in the division, but not so much that it compromises its standing among the best-handling. It only misses First Place by a hair, mostly because the default settings were relatively good. Overall, this is a very impressive tune on a notoriously plodding monster!
92/100
And the winner in my book...
Leonidae's Toyota Sprinter Trueno AE86 "Hachiroku"
1'40.541
This is truly a winning tune!
Default settings are very problematic, striking a difficult-to-tread balance between sharp snap-prone power oversteer and lift-under. It's far too stiff - curbing? Fuggedaboudit - and twitchier than a heroin addict in line at the methodone clinic.
Tuned, though, is a different story altogether! It handles with true aplomb, thrilling its driver with the perfect sporting balance: mild oversteer. In true Hachiroku fashion, it's also willing to go gracefully tail-out when asked, but will never overwhelm any but the most ham-fisted drivers. The only real criticism I can offer is that it might have been wiser to use a BIT less initial torque in the LSD and a marginally higher accel value - the drift angle is very controlable but seems to scrub a bit more speed than it should. This was likely done as it was, though, to combat the twitchiness of the default settings while preserving some of the tail-out capability, so it seems a fair trade. This grabs the top spot by virtue of superb handling, and the best balance of overall feel and improvement over both stock and default of any car in the division. Fantastic job!
94/100
Whew... this is the biggest division of any Tuner Challenge Class to date... my thumbs hurt and my brain is melting!
Congratulations to all, especially to the top four, extra-especially to the podium finishers, and most of all to
Leonidae! What say we all go out for a night of Tofu and Sake-bombing?
Now I have seen everything.
I think CLS would have taken the default tune as max downforce yes? Ah, that's why the default tune seems good, and why I was probably opposed to the idea of making default settings as max downforce. It can make a horrible car seem half-decent. Anyway, how does that top spot look from where I am.............
lol WUT? I finally got highest finishing place in some judge's eyes? 
