Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Lessons Learned


#22

So, I could have said this was available as a sedan, wagon, or ute (really, I’ve never seen one in real life, but I would love to) even though there’s not.

For the record, I don’t believe I will keep this as lore.

Also, Russian Ladder? Maybe I need to understand this better. I thought that ladder was body on frame, like what would be typical early to mid 80s, that monocoque was unibody typical of cars that were FWD, and newer cars/crossovers. Am I wrong about that?


#23

Well yes and no.
Of course you could say that other trims are available (i did so myself), but only the file you send in will be judged. If the buyer would go to see the car, they would only see the version you send in.

Small things are okay. Special Hifi by a brand, more cupholders etc.

Saying your car in Rotary powered, is a Hybrid or other stuff which could be replicated ingame, not so much.

Stay realistic.
Read up on older CSR’s. They are not only hilarious sometimes, they also help you learn.


#24

I also looked back on previous CSR rounds and often found myself wondering, “Why didn’t I make those design and engineering choices then?” Turns out CSR is a valuable learning experience indeed.


#25

Surprising market
I found myself tinkering with this


I got the numbers to slightly better than mediocre in Gasmea

Then I wanted to compare it in other markets, and found this does pretty decent in Fruinia; which is odd, because if Fruinia is analogous to Europe, then why would an offroader do so well?

By changing the tires to chunky offroad, and adding 5 mm to the height and taking 5 mm off the width, I got Offroad Utility to 102 in Fruinia.
Changing the bench to buckets improve sellability in Gasmea, but lowers it in Fruinia.


#26

Doing well you say? You’ve got 0% markup. Doing well would be getting 90 desirability at 50%


#27

In light campaign, I would frequently have profitable vehicles that would be low 100s with 0%, mid 70s to low 80s once I marked them up. This would have to be a low volume vehicle for sure, or at least a trim of a much more popular vehicle. I’m comparing this however, to the initial design that achieved 86.1 in offroad budget, and not much of anything else; 102 is quite the improvement. The reason I’m surprised, is that Fruinia, if truly analogous to Europe, would be more concerned with fuel economy than Gasmea; this vehicle, especially with the heavier seat and tires doing better than it would in Gasmea, does not fit that analogy.


#28

I like the updated design even tho i would still change the rims to something more capable of offroading.

But 2 things i can see:
->Front Bench ? Thats something for pickups , MPV’s and murican barges.
->0 Sportiness ? Thats a bit weird for a car like this.

Also Utility is a bit of weird for this kind of car


#29

I’m still tinkering with it. It’s become a fascination of mine, but I agree; the bench thing is weird, and even with the roof and trunk racks, it’s not really a utility (although 808 liters of cargo space is better than what I started with). I’ll be trying different things: after I posted this earlier, I cobbled a smaller turbo-4 with 85 hp and 96 lb.ft. of torque, and got an even higher desireability. I don’t even know what I’ll wind up doing with it, but it’s been a lot more fun than some of my previous designs. 0 sportiness is likely because the car sits 517 mm off the ground.


#30

I’ve been experimenting with turbos. I’ve got my economy up - still working on performance. I tried some experiments. I’m going to put them here, but to save time, this is what they are:
Experiments A, C, E, and G all are based on the same architecture; B, D, F, and H are on another shared architecture.
Originally, the goal was to get a 1.5 liter motor, similar to Honda Civic; hence why A, C, E, and F are based on the 1982-1991 dimensions of that engine, and the others are based on the more recent one.
I was having a problem generating horsepower, but I was able to make the engines more efficient, though not as efficient as others have been able. Only A and E feature cast parts, and have higher efficiencies than the rest, which have forged parts. E is the only car with fixtures, all the rest are just setups to test my motors. Enjoy.
Experiment - A.car (11.2 KB) A: 126 hp 156 lb. ft. tq. 36.3 mpg 72.0 avg rel. 33.37 efficient 1695 cc
Experiment - B.car (11.2 KB) B: 138 hp 150 lb. ft. tq. 33.9 mpg 74.6 avg rel. 29.4 efficient 1544 cc
Experiment - C.car (11.2 KB) C: 127 hp 146 lb. ft. tq. 31.2 mpg 75.6 avg rel 1508 cc
Experiment - D.car (11.2 KB) D: 137 hp 147 lb. ft. tq. 30.7 mpg 74.3 avg rel 1499 cc
Experiment - E.car (30.4 KB) E: 150 hp 203 lb. ft. tq. 33.8 mpg 71.6 avg rel 34.0 efficient 2500 cc V-6 (Originally designed as an inline 6, and acheived much better efficiency, but could not fit in this vehicle)
Experiment - F.car (11.2 KB) F: 189 hp 270 lb. ft. tq. 28.2 mpg 74.9 avg rel. 30.3 efficient 3282 cc V-6
Experiment - G.car (11.2 KB) G: 218 hp 295 lb. ft. tq. 27.1 mpg 73.0 avg rel 30.9 efficient 3320 cc V-8
Experiment - H.car (11.2 KB) H: 219 hp 300 lb. ft. tq. 26.8 mpg 74.3 avg rel 30.9 efficient 3472 cc V-8

I spent the better part of my day off working on this. I’m sure I could push it further, but would it suit my needs? These are modern engines (with direct injection and 5 valves/cylinder), I still need to work on ERA correct engines and getting more POWER.

P.S. If your ears can handle it, this is Experiment J: Experiment - J.car (32.6 KB)
157 hp 235 lb ft. tq. 44.0 mpg 72.1 avg rel. 42.36% efficient 2535 cc Inline 6. No mufflers, so it’s 61.4 db; if you put straight through, it’s still 43 db, and each reverse flow lowers efficiency by 0.1%
Experiment K: Experiment - K.car (32.6 KB)
218 hp 314 lb ft tq 42.8 mpg 70.9 avg rel. 41.46% efficient (with no mufflers @ 66.5 db) 3336 cc Inline 6

Silly engineering question from non-engineer
Why couldn’t one do a dual exhaust on an inline 6? I understand that all the cylinders are in a row, but you could just have a manifold for the 1st 3, and then another for the back 3 (for that matter, you could do the same with an inline 4). I get that it would take up a lot of space, but so does a 5 inch pipe.


#31

oh my christ no. that design is haunting.

no, no, no.


#32

…this also gives me ideas for Marrow Experimental Design (UE4 random stuff), trypophobia warning for better or for worse.


#33

image

But no for real.

First : Yes, you can go dual Exhaust on an Inline


Second :
Oh boyo

I looked over your file again and made some notes:

  • Double Wishbone in the Rear is a rarity in RL and here it doesn’t give you any benefit. It’s big and uses up Cargo space
  • Why are you using Steel as a Chassis Material? That’s just way too heavy
  • DOHC 5V? Most cars which have those are ether high performance or are only Inline/VR
  • The Bottom End is fine
  • DI per Cylinder is again something for high performance cars
  • So is the Performance Intake. This engine is not made for performance otherwise you would push much more horsepower
  • The design of the car is… retro gone wrong? The color is unfitting. Front and rear don’t really have anything in common and the front is something on a whole new level of creepy.
  • While the Drivetrain choice is good , the tyres are underperforming
  • Fully Clad and Colling Flaps ? Last time i looked ( and I didn’t really wanted to take another) this was a wagon, not a MR supercar
  • Standard Interior and Entertainment are also dragging this car down
  • Variable Hydraulic? Why not var. Electric?
  • Hydropneumatic? Is your name Citroen? No? Then i would something cheaper and more reliable

Of Course i couldn’t stay there any changed stuff yet again:

With minimal engine tuning and swapping a lot of other stuff i managed to get to this

Yes its more expensive, but i also thrown in Premium Seats and Info. And we are running now at 39mpg
The Changelog:

  • Corrosion Rest Steal -> Partial Alu
  • Steel Chassis -> AHS Steal
  • Rear DW -> Torsion Beam
  • 5V DOHC -> 4V DOHC
  • Changed Car Design
  • Hard Long -> Medium Compound
  • Removed Clay and Cooling flaps
  • Tuned Aero
  • Thrown in Premium Interior and Info
  • Var Hydraulic -> Var Electric
  • Standard 00 -> Standard 10
  • Hydro -> Progressive , Mono , Semi

I have seen some improvements. The turbo is fine and there is no quality spam. This car falls again under " I blown my whole budget on the engine so i can’t afford anything else"

(I gonna go to sleep now… its 7am woops)


#34


Toned down the design to something less ghostly. Took away the AWD, so rather than a Outback competitor, it’s more just a fuel efficient wagon. 50.4 MPG!
And here is something for when you want to hang out at the track all day, but you only have $5 for gas. A 75 MPG track car.
Model 1 - Trim 1.car (18.8 KB)


#35

Heeeyo
Yet again i looked over you car (No i can’t stop.)

I found some things which you did good. My notepad is not that full.
The Block and Head Material are good and the Engine tuning was really good. Better than my engines tbh.

But
Oh boy
Yet again there are some things i just don’t get you would use for this.

  • Fiberglass and Spaceframe ? Did you build this in a shed as a kit car ?
  • Design is eh
  • 4 gears ?! 1970 called and they want their gearbox back
  • Carbon Discs ? That’s overkill
  • Fully Clad and Cooling Flaps. When i said this is for a supercar i meant something like a Lambo.
  • Premium Interior ? I thought this is a lightweight sports car ?
  • Why does a car with 100hp and a 0-60 in 8sec need LC ?!
  • Its nice you want to keep your passenges safe, but advanced safety weighes the car a lot down.
  • But the biggest “WHY” is this : Why the hell is the Block 2.1L, but the Variant only 1.5?! Just why ?!

So i yet again did some things :

Changelog :

  • Fiberglass -> Alu ( Doesn’t limit your production and is quicker to produce)
    Spaceframe -> Semi Spaceframe ( See above)
    MacPherson -> Double (Why use normal Suspension ? Give a sport car what it needs)
    Changed Displacement (Gained 40hp)
    Low Friction -> Forged (to make engine not explode)
    DI per Cyl -> Single (Was just wasting money)
    Changed design (I would really suggest finding a better color. The color drags the design really down. But you improved)
    Carbon F/R -> Vented 2 Piston / Solid 1 Piston (Carbon was just wasting money)
    Removed Clad and Flaps (No)
    Springs changed to Standard->Semi->Active (Thrown in some better springs and changed the tune)

Here are the stats. Your base version on top and mine on the bottom

I hope this helped
Mikonp7


#36

I was fiddling around to make a Stock car (I’m not going to post it here). I cannot unzip compressed files, so I cannot get the Daytona track (I already searched, was hoping there was an alternative answer). I found that I was able to coax 20 extra HP and 20 extra lb. ft. torque by using a bigger block, and only boring it to 5900 cc (still well short of 500). The bigger block, weighed an extra 50 kilos. So the build that got me 432 HP/420 lb ft tq sent me around the airfield in 1:22.67, whereas the lighter 410/400 got me in 1:21.45. I wouldn’t have thought 100 lbs to be that much. I shouldn’t have fiddled with it, because I had it down to 1:21.17, now I can’t get it back.
Limiting the speed gearing has also made my car faster for some reason. The 410/400 engine is capable of 265 km/h, but that gets me in the mid 1:23s. By limiting the speed to 235, I achieved the 1:21.45.


#37

7zip is free


#38

And it works pretty well.

Or you can use the infinite winrar test period XD.


#39


#40

My experience in Europe
I went to Munich 25 years ago as part of a class trip. The family I stayed with, the father worked for the government, so they were sort of well-to-do. They drove an Opel Ascona. I remember it being very small, and sort of old (but that’s probably because they had hand painted it). The son was very excited about the new C-class Mercedes coming out. In the United States, the C-class is an entry-level. It wasn’t until much later (15+/- years) that I found out Mercedes made smaller cars. Fast forward to 2008/09, and my mother was working in Ireland, and wanted me to help her pick out a car, from 5,000 miles away. Most of the cars were 1.0 liter 3 cylinders, 1.3 liter 4 cylinders, with some vans carrying a whopping 2.0 liter 4 cylinder motor. She told me this was an EU thing. This always confused me, because all the Rabbits (Golf), Jags, Benz, and Bimmers were 2.5 liters and bigger.
So, about the last 10 years or so, I’ve been operating under the delusion that Europeans were driving around in tiny fuel efficient vehicles, and the cars we get are something different entirely. In 2015, I bought my wife a Volvo V70 (she loves it); doing research, I learned that the 2.4 liter 5 cylinder is what they put in North American models, and Euro models get a 2.0 liter (can’t remember if that was a 4 or a 5). This sort of reinforced this delusion.
Recently however, I’ve been getting into Automation (working part time, and got a lot of free time), and I’m researching cars on which to base my designs. I found a video on YouTube about how it’ll finally be legal next year to import a true M3. A true M3 being one that has a 3.0 inline 6, rather than the American version with a 2.5. More importantly, I’ve learned that there is a market in Germany and the U.K. for Mustangs and Camaros; not exactly the tiniest engines.
Are Germany and the U.K. unique in this aspect? In researching period specific cars, such as Fiat and Renault, I see very few 6 cylinder engines.
Anyway, here is an attempt at an M3. It’s not quite there yet. I’m over by 7 hp, but short by 20 lb. ft. of torque.Giusseppe - G3.car (29.9 KB)


#41

Honestly?
This is okayish.
Some of the Engine Componets are still overkill and the interior is something i wouldnt seat myself in.
But otherwise its fine. Some of the design fixtures are still not perfect, but compared to sad Isacc from before this is a real jump into the right direction.

I think i only changed the Bottom End, Exhaust Manifold and some minor design flaws

But hey. Its okayish