Ibishu 200BX

Sooooo

U have been playing kerbal space program? ^^

If it keeps exploding ... just add struts.. they fix everything ... struts and bubblegum

 

Way nicer, definitely fits the brand now.

 

Looks better.. Definetly stole the pignose 240 look lol

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

Dat pignose doe, early 240sx hatch xD love the model gabester!

 

I feel your pain... Everyone wants the old camaros or new Stangs. Ugh, Being a mopar guy in a Chevy man's world...

 

Wrong thread...man.

 

The way the ass end pokes out looks sexy.

 

Thank you Gabester. This has to be my most anticipated official vehicle of all, along with the Ibishu Miramar, because you know, pre 90's, RWD and Japanese

I really like the new design too. I can see some subtle references to the Covet in the taillights, and the hint to a Pig Nose RPS13 in the nose is a nice touch too. Overall, I think it is a very sexy car, and will be my most used official vehicle in BeamNG (except for crashing/torture, that's what the Wendover and LeGran are for (upon release of course))

One last thing, I read in this thread that you were going to power it by a 1.5 litre inline 4. I find that for a car of this size and nature, a 1.5 is a little pathetic. Personally, I would use a 2.0 litre twin cam 4 (as the name suggests) with around 130-150 BHP. a 1.8 version may also be viable for Japanese markets (called 180BX), with both engines having an optional turbo. The US version may also be more suited with a larger displacement inline 4 (2.2l-2.6l) but generally be more torquey with less power per litre (i.e crap), as Americans like bigger engines and low end torque. I also read about possibly having 6 cylinder versions. I think that something like what they did with the Celica XX (Supra) would be best, in which a separate chassis based on the 200BX, with an elongated front end to accommodate a 6 cylinder. I would be more inclined to use an inline 6, with a displacement of around 2.5l-3.0l, although considering it's late 80's/early 90's production, a V6 may be more viable (perhaps the V6 from the Pessima). A V6 would also eliminate the need to lengthen the nose, although different styled front panels would be nice, to differentiate from 4 cylinder models.

Lastly, do you think it would be possible to include the Japanese spec (JDM) version, with right hand drive and Japanese only bits (e.g amber indicators, generally nicer trim and interior than export models and so on)

 

I think being as this car will have a 2.0 a good base 2.0 should make 175hp over 138tq.. Then the turbo model with w similar engine just different heads and a turbo making 210hp over 145tq fits this car . I like making up numbers :3

 

I mentioned a 1.8 and 2.0 displacements in reference to CA18 and SR20 engines. The specs for these are as follows (from the late 80's/early 90's)
CA18DE:131BHP/159NM
CA18DET:167BHP/228NM
SR20DE:137BHP/178NM
SR20DET:205BHP/275NM
I think that engines with similar characteristics to the above (but not the same, as the 200BX is not a 180SX) would suit, as the 200BX appears to be in the category of >1000kg sports coupes, such as the Nisan S13 and A60 Celica. Should the 200BX be somewhat deceptive, being more covet sized with a curb weight of around 900kg, a 1.6 would be more suitable, like an AE86.

 

The engines sound great! 140HP in an 1133kg car should be loads of fun Is the 2.5 from the Pessima a 4 or 6, I'm guessing some sort of torquey inline 4.

Also, the Covet has an FF transaxle type gearbox, so for an FR layout in the 200BX, a totally different gearbox would be required. I suppose the ratios could be the same, although an FR gearbox is almost always has a 1:1 ratio in 4th, which is not so in a front wheel drive gearbox (it's near 1:1, like 0.94:1 or 1.14:1)

 

Looks like something I could mod the hell out of and turn it into an epic drifter

 

sorry i dont like the new shape
in the old one the hood was longer then the back and it looked like a nice coupe.
now the shape on the side view is not sporty enough. the the cabin is to much in the middle.

 

I think you will find that it's just the camera angle that is giving that illusion.

Notice that the old version is taken from a lower angle. If you compare the two, you notice that the windscreen ends in the same place behind the front wheelarch. The distance of front bumper is also the same, so the length is no different to before. The front and rear images are also physically smaller than the old shot, so the bonnet looks shorter/smaller, along with the whole car.

 

Looks great, but one thing worth noting is the curvature in the side windows.

Im thinking it maybe doesnt curve enough, so you wouldnt be able to wind down the window properly.

Look at this image and see what you think.

 

It is a 2 door, that window does not wind down :\

 

What? No im pretty sure the front windows will wind down.

 

Your circle made it look as if you were meaning the rear side windows.

But yeah you have a point, it doesn't look like they would go down.

 

Oh i see, i used the side pillar as a guide for the circle. I wasn't really sure if it was the case or not, it'd be much easier to tell from the front or back.