Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 62: Crisis of Confidence
The rule set for CSR 105 - to build a small, economical and affordable commuter car for the European market in 1979(!) - didn't inspire much confidence at first. Having to design late-70s economy cars after three consecutive rounds of making more modern machinery came as quite a shock to me, especially since there had not been a CSR round set in the 70s for a very long time. In particular, the technology available in 1979 was much more primitive compared to what would be available just five years later - in the Automation timeline, multi-point electronic fuel injection and treated steel body panels would not be available until 1982 and 1995, respectively. However, three-way catalytic converters were available by 1979, which proved to be helpful with regards to emissions reduction, especially since the maximum engine emissions were capped at 1800 for this round.
After taking a few minutes to understand the rule set, I set about making some test cars to see which one would be most appropriate for submission. Eventually I settled on the GEC GC1 1.4i, a small hatchback powered by an all-iron, single-overhead-cam, 1.4-litre inline-four with mechanical fuel injection. Underneath, it had a fairly conventional front-wheel-drive layout, with struts up front and a torsion beam at the rear. Standard equipment included a four-speed manual transmission, four-wheel disc brakes, an 8-track player, front fog lights, and power steering. Safety equipment was typical of the era, as was the exterior styling, with a boxy, sharp profile in anticipation of the automotive design trends of the coming decade. However, it was finished in bright green - a typical color for cars made in the 1970s - and this helped it stand out even more.
It's definitely no sports car, but for affordable, economical, and comfortable motoring, the GEC GC1 will easily get the job done.
The little GC1 had two doors on each side and a decent-sized boot - some of the entries had only one (or, worse yet, neither) of these attributes - and that made it quite a practical choice indeed. It was reliable, too, with an all-iron engine and tried and tested underpinnings (struts up front, trailing arms at the rear). What really stood out, however, was its powerband, which had plenty of low-end torque (for the era), and that contributed to its decent economy rating of just 8.6 litres / 100 km. Moreover, with so much torque available in the lower rev range, the GC1 was quite easy to drive even with the four-speed manual transmission, especially with the comfort-biased suspension tune. To prove a point, here are some screenshots showing various aspects of the GC1's tiny engine.
Above, from top: The GC1's 1.4-litre inline four-cylinder engine is fitted with hypereutectic cast-alloy pistons for reduced emissions; a mild cam profile guarantees a smooth idle and improves economy, with more low-end torque to boot; and despite the lean-burn mechanical fuel injection setup, retarded ignition timing makes the 8.1:1 compression ratio possible, thereby improving efficiency further.
By today's standards, however, the GC1 was very slow, taking over 14 seconds to reach 60 mph and totally incapable of reaching 100 mph. Then again, the GC1 was never meant to be a sports car - back in 1979, with the car market having been disrupted by the second oil crisis in less than a decade, outright performance was the last thing on most car buyers' minds. In addition, the brakes proved to be adequate for daily driving, nothing more, while the car's comfort rating of 14.0 (as submitted) is deceptive: 40 years ago, this would have been decent for a small budget hatchback.
In the end, though, the GC1 didn't trouble the top 6, but it still had plenty of merit considering its humble roots. The winning car, the Rhisuki Trekka B-12AT, was a less conservative car by comparison, with a smooth, torquey flat-four which lacked a catalytic converter (an omission made possible by the use of an aluminum block) and was fitted to an automatic transmission for drivability's sake. The low service costs helped compensate for its slightly below-average reliability - another consequence of using an aluminum block.
The winning car, the Trekka, known for its more advanced engineering - a cutting-edge contrast to the GEC's relative conservatism.
And so one of the more entertaining CSR rounds in recent memory came to an end. In the next round, I will show one of my recent Automation projects: to improve a car which was not known for being as good as it looked, but still had potential.
