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

Maesima Motor Corporation - All-New Maesima Avellca (1997)


But performance cars can be eco cars too right? :smile:


Yeah they can. My newer performance cars can reach 40mpg, while making decent time round the test track.


I would need some serious prototypiing to answer this.

KHT Bahn GT would like a word on definitions of “decent” and “economical” :smiley:


Well, the EADC Verona JRT(Road Legal version) can reach around 160mph with an average economy of about 38mpg, and go around the airfield track in 1 min 27 sec (I like to think that that time is okay for a NA FF 2.1L).

As for the next car im putting on my thread, well, I kinda designed the engine before I decided economy was good…


Give it a bigger engine, and choke it harder. Also give it a turbo, it will chug less


I dont think a bigger engine would fit in the Verona, its engine placement is transverse (the car uses an i6). I mean, I could just put in a V8. That might get more power.


Theres a reason why they put v6 in FWD cars.


But I like my i6’s in FWD cars… Besides which, i6’s are supposed to be my company’s shtick.


And I like to ride a bicycle with 1 wheel, but it doesn’t mean that it’s the most efficient bicycle.


Sorry @squidhead, but it is impossible to ride a bike with 1 wheel, the closest you can get to that is a unicycle.


ever done a wheelie on a bike? …I havent :disappointed:


You are talking to a person who used to BMX race. Boy I have done millions of wheelies.


Not everything has to be as efficient as possible :wink:


I used to fi-


I do not want to embarass myself


Well if you wish to limit the potential of your car then sure, it may be inefficient. I like making cars to be at their best, not going along with a quirky idea of slotting an i6 transversely will improve power, efficiency, fuel consumption etc etc etc, resulting in a better car.

Also shut up you summertime peasants. I got a stickerbombed snowboard, and it’s december, so I’m automatically the reigning authority on extreme sports.


Yes, it will be better from any reasonable point of view. But if everyone was reasonable (including car makers) then we wouldn’t have a lot of wonderful things - M BMWs for example - and the world would be a deadly boring place :stuck_out_tongue:


Uhh actually an I6 transverse will be considerably more efficient than a V6 transverse. Making enough power though, that’s another story :slight_smile:


That is blatantly false. The BMW M series is NOT an inefficient car. It does not try to put 400hp through the front left wheel using telekinesis based transmission just because it’s a cool idea in their mind.

More so the first M series cars were a carefully calculated step, after BMW saw the interest in a superfast saloon in the e12 m535i they’ve created the e28 M5, it was a very efficient way of

  1. Not letting a ton of spent money on an m engine (M88 at the time) to go to waste.
  2. Get a foothold in a niche that was forming
  3. Create a car that is as efficient as a daily as it is as an track destroyer.

If people were not doing things efficiently the M cars would be junk, like trying to put an 8 liter v8 through FWD using chain drive and a 3sp automatic, and yes, those existed in US at the same time BMW were making M5 and M3.


You’re exaggerating heavily here. Transverse I6 isn’t as bad as your examples. Heck, it CAN even be efficient in some ways - for example it can be a part of a modular engine family. And if it has the needed capacity, then where is any inefficiency?

And I thought about different efficiency than you - not business efficiency, but rather fuel and space usage efficiency. And I don’t really get why you are so much against the fact that someone does something inefficiently just because he likes it.


E39 m5 chugs 7L/100 km at 100kph in 6th.
E39 530 Diesel chugs 6.5L/100km at 100kph in 5th (final)

No efficiency here, then.

Because if it’s inefficient then it’s a wasted potential, meaning the car is nowhere near as good as it could be.