Well, I tried it with the 2.1m Wheelbase Mini Hatch, Fibre Glass Body and it runs 108kph with a 7 Speed. 613kg in BeamNG, so it’s really light.
I’ll try 125 Tires and make a 95 Octane 25HP Engine, turn down the Cam, Up the Mixture and see where that goes.
The Family is actually good for 75+hp with a Turbo, and would be good for even more, but the Game Limits me to 12000RPM.
I’m gonna try out a completely Hypered Engine.
I have a 38hp 95 Octane Engine already.
And now a 91 RON 38hp, it’s not that Hard, but I have to use 13.8 Micture.
Maybe you should put the export file on your OP so we can download it and see if we can help.
Just listing all the information doesn’t aid in clarifying where you’re going wrong or right!
I’m new to the Forum, how do I export it here without external (Virus Infected) Clouds?
First, stop with the quality spam. It might make your car heavier than it needs to be (especially in the pannels/chassis tab. Also, lower cams give better fuel economy, by far (but with lower hp, but better torque curve). Also, if you’re producing power at 7,100rpm cut the rpm limit at 7,600ish, there is no reason to be at 12,000 rpm, that most likely affects gearing, thus, top speed and fuel economy.
Extra quality in tires adds a lot of grip, and it will decrease your fuel economy as well, try 0 quality. And although à gearbox with 8 quality diminishes power loses, probably you’re losing fuel economy there as well.
If you’re using DFI, try 15.0:1 fuel mixture. Also, check the fuel efficiency graph, and tune gearing accordingly, ex. if the most efficient point is at 1,800rpm set the gears such that most of the fuel economy calculations are in that range.
Probably the ONLY place where you would put extra quality for better fuel economy and higher speed is in the aero tab.
And stop posting multiple times, just edit your previous posts if you want to add something.
Probably not the point, but check killrob’s YouTube channel, he recently build a city car with an amazing fuel economy, that can give you some tips and ideas.
EDIT: I just realized @myfabi94 you were trying to build a bike engine. I did tried once, a 600cc yamaha engine on a smart body, to futile results. Seems Automation isn’t really made for that.
How to export and share your car with the forum…
2 - Share the .car file via the upload button on your original OP
3 - ???
4 - PROFIT!!!
Hope this helps!
I’m gonna try some of the Changes.
I have a modular engine family with inline 3, 4, 5 and 6 cylinder engines - all of them turbocharged and set up about 95% the same. Why am I saying this? Because in a test car (with variants set up 99% the same) they all get nearly the same fuel consumption, regardless whether it’s a 3-pot version or a 6-pot one. So engine size isn’t that important for economy, it’s the setup that matters the most. For such a small car I’d go with a 0.7-1.0 litre engine even, 0.7 for turbocharged, 1.0 for N/A.
I’m a new User, can’t share anything with you guys.
Try maybe with dropbox, mega or google drive.
a) 1.0L engine so it can get moving
b) LOWER CAM PROFILE. This was my problem for the longest time and I never knew why I got poor fuel economy. Well, this is it.
c) experiment around!
EDIT: aerodynamics are just as important weight BTW, Mini Cooper is light but also a brick in the wind tunnel.
2.0 Turbo 40% engine maybe can be good.95 octane.
100mpg (=2.35 L/100km). 26.5hp 295cc I3 turbo. No quality sliders.
Key takeaways:
Eco Test - 100mpg.car (11.0 KB) (place this in My Games\Automation\CarSaveImport)
Note: as others have said, you’ll probably want to use larger engines with more low-end torque for anything more than a car purely designed for fuel efficiency.
Also this video might help with some directions for reasonable eco cars:
I have had servial tests on fuel economy, power etc etc.
I have tried to build competitor for Skoda Kodiak which is farily sizable SUV, with smallest engine being 1.4l Turbo. The downside was that acceleration was abysmal, top speed around 140kmh, and I had to work the engine HARD to keep 120kmh (75mph) “highway” speed going on. which meaned that the fuelconsumption was high.
I have love of 70’s american barges so I have compared 6l V8, carburated vs 3.1l I6 carburated Turbo . just to get them more fuel efficient. Again with big heavy boxy body.
The i6 saved half a litre for 100km, and provided higher top speed (158kmh vs 169kmh tested on BeamNG)
How ever over a lap on Automation Testrack (In BeamNG) the V8 was notably faster due to it’s massive torque advantage.
This was most notable when trying to get from standstill, As the V8 set off with tires chirping, and i6… Well it moved eventually.
As these were driven on 4speed automatic transmission I also noted that holding a speed wityh the V8 was easy, and didnt requitre much changes on throttle position, the I6 needed constant and large throttle adjutments, So much in fact that the gearbox every now and then opted to shift to lower gear.
Also I noted that on 0-100-0(kmh) The V8 had stopped before i6 car started to brake.
What did I learn form these?
Have enough displacement so you can get enough torque, and get the torque on the rev range where you want to have the car on 60 80 and 120kmh speeds on high gear.
Model 2 - Trim 2.car (9.8 KB)
Here is an example, no tech sliders and 4l/100km, 106hp. I used a different more aerodynamic body, but didn’t spend much time fine tuning it.
It would have a max speed of 145 if I hadn’t governed it to 105 to keep the tire cost down.
When you look at the engine power/torque, and efficiency graph it peaks torque and efficiency from 1500-4500 rpm where the engine will be used most often.
Just slapped this thing together
Half irrelevant things.
Tested the car on BeamNG where the top speed ended up being 118kmh (althuogh I had governed it to 150kmh, in automation which suggests top speed 152kmh withuot governing it) How ever there is apparently some form of turbo bug as the boost jumps all over the place and rarely get’s to as high as it shuold be able to be.
Anyhow, that 118kmh was achieved on 5th gear, and the engine was revving at 6k rpm instead of the ideal 3.5k, but I assume this is due the boost bug.
How ever I took a caravan, combined the tow bad node to the cars rear end, and tested the tow capability, and managed to get the caravan on top of the mountain. As the speeds were rather low, on the twisty mountain road, it wwasnt actually even a reas struggle, and the car pulled relatively strongly speeds being around 30-50kmh mostly on 3rd gear.
That’s one of the least aerodynamical bodies, which significantly harms both economy and top speed.
No, that’s only a matter of your gearing setup. RPM to car speed relation is fixed and linear, always and everywhere.
My idea was to use the least aerodynamical, althuogh still relatively light body, Just like OP uses.
And yes I actually shuold have said
"118kmh was achieved on 5th gear, and the engine was revving at 6k rpm instead of the ideal 3.5k, on 6th gear, but due to the boost bug I am losing both power and torque (0.4 bars of boost on Autoamtion, comes out as 0.2 bars in BeamNG) hence the 6th gear becomes unusable oneven ground.
