The Car Shopping Round (Round 64): Tears in Heaven

ramthecowy · 2 February 2017 12:27

koolkei · 2 February 2017 12:33

koolkei · 2 February 2017 13:19

in no particular order. (because the order was messed up because of entry problems, and i can’t be bothered to mess with it )

@Madrias - Minerva Majesty:

First impression :
IT’S FREAKING PURPLE
though it’s not bad looking but i also get a feeling that this is a wagon trying to be a minivan

it’s a V8
it’s using a infamiliar Technology : Direct injection*
not-so-useful high-flow cats
also useless Viscous LSD. we don’t have any winter here, and it doesn’t have that much power
a not so beneficial full clad undertray
0 driver aids, not even the free power steering

pretty amazing economy (25.61km/l)
running cost are lower than average
seems to be quite reliable (81.7)

Verdict:
it’s not a bad car. just not sensible enough.

remember that this is a 3rd world nation. new technology is accepted very late here. if you take it to a dealer, it’s fine, but if you need to take it to a 3rd party garage, it’s gonna cost more because not every garage has a mechanic that understands Direct injection yet. and those who do, is pretty likely to charge more.

@szafirowy01 - Griffa Aurion 1.2 ES :

First Impression:
it’s all kind off pretty O_O. i really like it.

too much cost cutting visible even from the exterior
i6??? (not sure it’s a bad thing)
why long tubular exhaust? that’s expensive
not-so-useful high-flow cats (again)
a not so beneficial full clad undertray (again)

88.3HP (although at the redline)
Power Steering and ABS are present
a good fuel economy rating
acceptable cargo space and running costs
pretty Easy to drive (68 Drive)

Verdict:
cutting costs on the pretty important stuff to put it on other stuff that is not very useful is not a very good design decision

@Normanvauxhall - Znopresk Zen :

First Impression:
THAT HEADLIGHT. looks too big for the body. other than that. it’s not bad.

another not-so-useful high-flow cats

Power Steering and ABS are available

Verdict:
a car so perfectly sensible that it doesn’t have any major flaw, but also doesn’t have much selling point to it.

@Rk38 - Maesima Devina Ruca XZ :

First Impression :
this is an old car disguising itself to be a new car (2002 model - 2013 trim). but looks wise, it’s… proper-ish. looks a bit sporty even

running costs are rather high
forged internals paired with Low Friction cast piston are just asking too much from the piston. gonna have reliability penalty
BAAAAAAD quality interiors and infotainment system

it’s cheap @ $10080 and
it looks pretty good

Verdict:
Except for the engine internal design, and the interior it’s mostly sensible design choices.

@Conan - Trim 1??:
(either automation didn’t save the name, or he forgot to name it)

First Impression :
Looks pretty okay… from the front at least, the rear are pretty bland. and the paint are also not helping

Direct Injection + only average running costs
No Power steering or any driver aids
another one of these not-so-useful high-flow cats

Good fuel economy (21.92km/l)
High reliability (82.8)
not much cost cutting anywhere, which is good.

Verdict:
can’t really say much. it’s a good car.

@HighOctaneLove - Boqliq Patriarch SE :

First Impression :
It’s the usual boqliq blueeeeee. but other than that. it’s a cheap jeep-alike. but it’s quite… good-looking, manly? dunno about that.

Really high running costs
Cast Iron V6 SOHC 4 valve. a little bit too complex and too much parts.
Direct Injection but high running cost
again with these Long Tubular Headers
for a utility based car build, the gearing are all wrong. way too high and too short.
no driver aids whatsoever.

Super high reliability Rating (83.2)
Cargo Space are Huge

.# Ladder Chassis? and a good one at that it seems
.# Has VVL
.# No Low Friction piston but instead Lightweight Forged

Verdict :
Trading those complicated Long header for short cast headers and then getting a power steering installed would’ve been a better idea

@lordvader1 – Cititogo :

First Impression

front looks really dated, but rear end looks… acceptable. But nowhere near good-looking.

Direct Injection, and the engine feels really restricted.
you know what I think about full undercladding by now.

Standard Feature Interior. Nice.
Power Steering is here.
Fuel economy is certainly pretty good
Cargo Volume is pretty large. Surprisingly
Running Costs are also very significantly lower than average.

.# Plain Steel construction car again
.# Rear brakes are somewhy super big

Verdict :
actually a Great car with sensible designs… now if only they outsourced the looks department.

@dracoautomations - vuvuvuwewewewewew :
(i screwed the name up. whatever, i’m not going to type that name letter per letter, sorry. it’s just as gibberish anyway)

First Impression:
Everything is big, and heavy. it looks and has the character just like an obese person. though i kinda like a back end a bit.

full plain steel chassis and panel material sure it’s cheap, but there’s much better things in value today.
alumunium blocks? why not the lighter AlSi or the cheaper Cast Iron?
Direct Injection with the running cost a bit high
the gearing feels so short.

silent Engine because of the double reverse flow instead of the usual double baffled of the competitors
although a cheap one, it has a standard Feature Interior
does have Power Steering (it should be free wonder why aren’t more people using it)
FANCEH semi-active Sway bars

Verdict:
the only thing that’s bad about this one comes from 1 source. it’s way too heavy @ 1.2 tons+

@Lordred – LHE Astonish Mk 1.5 :

First Impression
how did an early 90s car got here?

full on heavy Corrosion Resistant Steel. Not really needed. This is a car that will be dumped within 10 years or so.
Direct Injection. Bad bad bad bad. Good.
interior and infotainment systems seems a bit too cheap.

Semi Trailing Arms on the rear means full independent suspension
Cargo Volume is pretty impressive.

.# No overdrive Gear?

Verdict :
seems old, uses old tech. But is new. Good, but confusing.

@CadillacDave - Horyuji Kesan 1.0E:
(Kesan → Impression in Indonesia)

First Impression:
it looks… ASIAN… not that it’s a bad thing, but just feels like it has a lot of asian influence in it’s exterior design. but it’s actually not bad looking.

Cargo Volume are a bit on the smaller side
an expensive Direct injection system although with significantly lower Running cost
more hidden potential from the engine
no radio/entertainment system
only single baffled muffler, so it’s gonna be a bit noisy

$10460 so it’s cheap ($9960 + $500 ABS)
VERY Efficient (23.37km/l)
ABS available
Good Quality Transmission

.# why 2 valve DOHC instead of 4 valves?
.# you have some fuel octane rating left to be used

Verdict:
Great, but have the potential to be even greater

@Leonardo9613 - Yucatan Santaka :

First Impression:
it looks really good, and clean. it’s just that the color is frankly a bit icky for me.

another one of these alu blocks engine. it’s neither cheap or light. why?
Manual Locker differential ?!?!?! why? what for? this thing is a city car, it will barely see any dirt in it’s life
don’t really need that full clad undertray.
Safety is just barely above the required standard.

simple MPFI system
HUGE cargo space
7 seater
Really Reliable (82.4)
only Costs $10680

Verdict:
except for a few choices that could be taken out because it’s not very useful. it would benefit from an ABS system, and better safety after those things are thrown out. otherwise, it’s a pretty serious contender here.

@EnryGT5 - Seishido Acta G 1.2 :

First Impression :
it’s… unique. the look isn’t really my taste, but it’s still… good looking, kinda. also a LITTLE bit on the sportier side

cargo space slightly on the smaller side
is using Direct injection

79.8hp, although at redline.
Does have Power Steering
Running Costs slightly below the average
@ $10560 means quite some left over budget left.
Seems one of these super reliable ones. (82.0)
pretty impressive economy too (22.48km/l)

.# 1 baffled and 1 reverse flow mufflers. why the mix?
.# engine overcooled quite significantly. a bit more than double. a bit of a waste once you go over double imo, but it’s okay i guess.

Verdict :
too much smaller details to note, and are not too significant, so it’s perfectly acceptable

@oppositelock - GSI Krakatoa :
(Krakatoa/Krakatau the volcano between the island Java, and Sumatera, that erupted in mid 19th century, which vulcanic dust have been recorded on the literal other side of the world)

First Impression :
uuuuuuuuuh okay??
the colors are low gloss cartoon puke green. why would they choose it? even plain white of black would’ve been better. and it also not ugly, but isn’t exactly attractive either.

Cargo space is small
Running costs is absurdly high
Direct Injection
absurdly overpowered front brakes without any ABS. it’s a danger
no infotainment system

uuuh turbo anyone?
highest power in class @ 114hp
at least they said yes to power steering
also good standard feature interior, except for the infotainment system.

.# Cast iron block but AlSi head? what exactly would you get from sacrificing that reliability?
.# SUPER wide tires @ 195mm

Verdict :
this is the sleeper car on the field. it certainly does NOT look like it’s a fast car, but it is. comparatively.

@JohnWaldock - JHW Gamelan :
(Gamelan is a traditional music genre that originated somewhere in java. (don’t remember where, i’m bad at history stuff))

First Impression :
this is a hot hatchback from the late 90s / early 00s trying to disguise itself as a modern budget car. but does the look justice in it’s own right though.

Cargo space is somehow even more cramped than the last car which was already small
forged internals + low friction cast piston are a bad mix, and are asking too much out of the piston.
Direct Injection with only average Running Costs
96.2HP through these hard and super tiny tires @ 145mm? you’re asking for trouble
Add to that, the front brakes isn’t even strong enough to lock the front wheels

96.2HP although, again, at the redline
Double Reverse Flow mufflers means it’s gonna be silent compared to the competitors
normal quality Basic interior. which is relatively good
also normal quality Basic Infotainment System, which is also good
has power steering at least.
actually the fuel economy isn’t even bad (21.03km/l)

.# it’s a problem of engineering decisions. multiple of them.

Verdict:
just as it looks it’s a hot hatch back wanting to go fast, but is trying to hold itself back and disguising itself as a cheap car. with pretty abysmal consequences

@Denta - Chetan RS :
(the name feels like a play on the indonesian word ‘Setan’. which is usually used in our everyday language to say something that is demonly fast)

First Impression:
looks sporty, and looks asian. but is simple and clean. i kinda like it.

the fuel economy is not that much higher than the required minimum while not offering much advantage
it’s so heavy @ 1150Kg while not being that big, or offering too much cargo space (another full plain steel construction car)
Running costs are also a bit on the higher side
engine seems really rough, both on feel and sound (-9 on internals, -12 on exhaust)
Direct Injection
Why the viscous LSD??
hey, it’s been a while there, full clad undertray.
HORRIBLE interior. (-12 standard interior, -11 basic infotainment system)

At least it’s safe thanks to that weight, and safety features
also power steering exists, at least.

Verdict:
Looks good, but really isn’t.

@thecarlover - CM Nanaimo B5 :

First Impression :
another green car, it’s pretty good looking at that. the front is pretty, the rear is… sporty but still looks good.

Basic Safety Features, and it seems like they skimped a little bit on it.

it doesn’t have anything complex or too advanced installed
car is rather light
Basic Interior with plenty of nifty small quirks inside
Power Steering
Cheap @ $9960

.# uhhh 2 valves DOHC??

Verdict :
(almost) everything is sensibly good. which is what i am looking for at the start

@HowlerAutomotive - Gnoo Familight:

First Impression:
i’m not a big fan of the color choice. also the choices of fixtures are… ugh (trypophobia). at least on the front. on the back are… okay.

1L i6 + 5 Valve DOHC + direct injection = overly complex engine
4 speed manual???
uneccesary full cladding
BAD infotainment system
semi active swaybars (because cost)
not as safe as the others.

semi active swaybars (because it’s good anyway)
Amazing efficiency (28.74km/l)
magically big cargo space for the size of the car
Impressive Low running cost ($1250)
stunningly low price ($9480)

.# wanted to say 145mm is too thin, but it’s only 729kg, so it’s within the realm of “acceptably thin”-ish

Verdict :
if you can ‘look’ beyond the exterior, you’ll find bliss in owning it

@Mythrin - Versal Nurelo :

First Impression:
it looks unfinished. everything looks so empty. let’s just hope the car isn’t empty too

the cost cutting in chassis is pretty visible if you look close enough
Alu block again. i’m guessing people are balancing cost and weight? at least trying to?
tubular exhaust?
the front brake isn’t even strong enough to lock the front tires. ABS? a mostly useless cost adding feature for this particular car
also no Power Steering
the interior and infotainment feels and looks super cheap

Simple and common MPFI system, a good quality one
good quality transmission
car is light, so economy is rather good (21.4km/l)

Verdict :
it’s a great car for a newcomer, but frankly, still has quite a bit to go.
(although it’s somewhat a feat you managed to fit that amount of quality points in the budget)

@TheElt - EB:

First Impression:

it’s happy yellow colored, but it looks so sad… what was the designer on when they made this?

one of this “WHY NOT?” car. with a V12. longitudinally mounted
Long Tubular, the already expensive part meets the expensive engine…
Suspension is slightly too soft, or car too low. definitely going to scrape when it’s full
car is so heavy (1150KG)

Interior is standard quality basic features.
at Least it does have Power Steering
holy freaking shit the cargo space… take out the middle seats and it can be turned into a hearse that can carry 2 coffins (1330L, compared to literally no one else is above the 1000L mark). as long as you modify the rear suspension

.# Engine is mounted Longitudinally
.# but is still Front wheel drive
.# also the only one with Solid Axle Leaf Suspension (so far)

Verdict:
yes we asked for a large boot. but this is just overkill for a family city car.

@gridghost - Scarab Flare :

First Impression:
WOAH DEJA VU… (look up CadillacDave’s car again) except the rear end is a bit more occupied.

Direct Injection + Turbo + Performance intake… that’s just asking for trouble on this dirty, humid and hot ambient air.
Front Brakes are not powerful enough to lock front tires.
as expected of a turbo car. the Running Costs are way too high

full Independent suspension type (semi trailing arm on the rear)
since it’s a turbo, it does have the torque on around the mid range.
Power Steering exists here.

.# again with the alu blocks
.# uhh economy tuned turbo but no low friction cast and still uses overkill forged internals. a mismatch of design decisions.
.# single baffled mufflers only, but because there’s a turbo, it’s not THAT much more noisy
.# 5th gear isn’t exactly an overdrive gear (out of 5 gears)

Verdict:
It’s a good one, but doesn’t offer as good of a value

@FindRED19 - Mighty Green Fist :

First Impression :
the looks confuses me. everything is so smaaaaalll
except for the headlight and taillight. why?

not very noticeable, but if you look real close, there’s a clear corner cutting on the chassis build.
i hope this is one of the last “JUST BECAUSE” car build with a V8 (1.18L Pushrod V8 to be exact)
and of course, to meet the economy requirements, Direct Injection system is required.
Holy JEEBUS. 205mm Wide Tires…
no Power Steering for a car this heavy (1070KG)
Running Costs are too high, while fuel economy is not much above the required limit

normal Quality Standard Interior

Verdict :
JUST BECAUSE you can =/= it’s gonna be good

@4LGE - Taore Z-Pinch:

First Impression
did they like the Honda Zest so much that they made their own take on it?

wow. everything rattles. you don’t even need to see to know it’s badly built.
4 speed automatic because efficiency
WHY THE MANUAL LOCKER diff???
also full cladding on a car this small? well maybe, because of the box shape of the body they needed it?
that’s… a cushioned plastic seats inside? really?
Running costs a little bit on the higher side
overall so much parts on this car, and none of the seems to be built to normal standards. pretty sure issues are gonna pop up soon, and plenty of them will. (Reliability 66.2)

4 speed automatic, because ease to drive.
Power Steering and ABS are here boys.
Absurdly low price. what kind of hack did they use??? ($8520)
i guess thanks to the box shape, the cargo space is big, at least vertically.

.# interesting approach with the powerplant. 725cc turbo i4. the turbo is being used to compensate the lack of displacement over economy or power. also 5 valves DOHC
.# engine is small and has turbo yes… also only a single muffler, which is a straight through usually for performance cars. yet it’s not that loud. WHAT MAGIC IS THIS

Verdict :
yes it’s practical, absurdly cheap. but also feels unfinished. these are the kind of people which want everything they have done/built for them. not the stuff who wants customability.

@LordLetto – Dadu :
(Dadu → Dice. I dunno he meant too.)

First Impression :
oh it’s this one. It’s the PINK ONE! Also where are the grilles?

Journal Bearing turbo? Plus it’s too small for the engine too.
I Beam Steel Conrod, Billet Crank, but Cast iron Piston.
Water-air Intercooler
4 speed Manual
Running Costs are high, Cargo Space are small and economy is low

Standard Interior and Basic infotainment, and no cost cutting there. Good

Verdict:
WHAT?! WHY?!

(sorry can’t find a way to fit PINK into this kind of review)

@TR8R – FOA Quaggan Li :

First Impression:
it’s pretty, except for the fact that the front end looks a little bit like a koi fish

forged stuff + low friction cast. But this time it’s not asking too much from the piston, but rather it’s not using the Forged parts potential at all.
no Overdrive gear??

normal Basic interior and infotainment.
Power steering + ABS is here.

.# ooh another leaf sprung suspension system.

Verdict :

it’s good, just not good enough.

@sillyducky – Fahrzeug C1B MPV:

First impression:
looks decent. But dated.

Direct Injection, but barely able to meet the Minimum Economy Rating
also expensive and unecessary Long Tubular Headers.
Ridiculous front brake setup with 3 piston grabbing 300mm Solid Disc
There is no ‘interior’. And the ‘radio’ is just a wireless bluetooth speaker that costs $20 at the supermarket.
Running costs slightly on the higher side

Full Independent Suspension with Semi Trailing Arm at the rear.
At least power steering and ABS are available to cover for that front brakes.
Cargo Space are large.

.# one of these engines using OHV setup. What’s the benefit of this setup again?

Verdict:
it’s an unfinished car. How could this even be sold to the public?

@MarcoAlla – Indocar B3 :

First Impression:

it’s quite a looker. Except for the top dual front grille. That looks like a nostril.

Direct Injection man, that thing shoots fast. I mean the fuel. It’s bad for you. I mean your wallet.
only a single Baffled mufflers, gonna be a bit loud.
tires are kinda thin.
Full Clad Undertray again. Not needed.
no infotainment whatsoever.

does have Power Steering
is reliable (83.3)
one of the best Fuel economy rating amongst the competitors (24.85km/l)
really low Running costs.
Super Cheap @ $9720

.# oooooh the only Solid Axle Coil so far.

Verdict:
an amazing little car, just lacks a few things, like radio. Could be a contender

@rcracer11m – Mott Works Delta :

First Impression:
it looks… gently evil… but still not bad looking. Nowhere near bad looking actually.

Chassis build are not so sturdy it seems. Also visible by the panel/fixture gaps.
939cc i4 turbo. But not using the turbo very nicely. Efficient but low powered and a bit slow spooling.
Direct Injection does a part of it.
full clad undertray again.
no infotainment system at all.

engine seems to be VERY efficient, almost 34% they claim
at least power steering is available.
it’s the most fuel efficient car in the field. (29.37km/l)
also lowest Running Costs in the field by a pretty significant amount.
also Super Cheap @ $9720

Verdict :
good on paper, probably as good on the road, but it needs to build the reputation first to fight the social stigma of turbo cars are unreliable. And the fact it doesn’t even have a radio.

@Zabhawkin – IF112 :

First Impression:

again with these forged internal paired with the efficient but weak low friction cast pistons. Bad combination
only a single reverse flow installed. Forgiveable if it’s a turbo, but it’s not. It’s noisy
front brakes is not strong enough to lock the wheels. Even when it’s 325mm huge.
no radio, and no powersteering on a car this heavy? Wut?

7 seater babeh!!!
and of course it’s a minivan. The cargo space when the last row of seats is folded down is impressive. But even when it’s not, it’s still pretty decent.
they skimped out an a lot of features, but what is on this thing is all built to german-like standards. (reliability 84.8)
also quite a bit of budget left @ $10320

.# heaviest car in the field. A plain steel minivan. Figures (1245KG)
.# another one on this coil sprung solid axle rear parts.
.# 7 SPEED MANUAL!! wow… why?

Verdict:
they seems to carried out the characteristic of their offroad cars into this budget car. Which is good in one way, but not so much in another way.

@phale – Adenine Asante :

First Impression

pretty neat looking. It’s perfectly fits the looks of the class of cars. That’s a good thing or not, is up to you.

the body are built to spec it seems. But it’s just that the panel gap are huge.
785cc turbo i6 with VVL and vvt… uhhh why? So much parts, so tiny
the turbo is tuned to compensate lack of power, not lack of torque. So all the power is right at the redline. NOPE.
tiny-tiny wheels. 135mm wide only.
no infotainment. None. Nada.

power steering.
although it’s all at the redline, but it does still have 89HP.
price is… like buying a pretty expensive motorbike. Only $8400. how they managed to get it that low? I dunno, but I just hope they’re not using illegal labor.

.#uhhh bypass valve???

Verdict :
does most stuff just as good as any. But at a way lower costs to start. It’s just that so many parts are a bit shady by social standards, like the 135mm tires, the turbo i6 that small.

i am also 100% sure i missed something… but i already triple checked everything, and can’t seem to find what it is.

also the rest is for tomorrow morning (or afternoon, if i woke up late)

strop · 2 February 2017 13:23

THIS goes a long way to explain the low costs. Man, modern infotainment really jacks up the price in the budget models…

…I should have entered my mini car, says hindsight.

Denta · 2 February 2017 14:02

nope, im using sankrit name as usual for this round

making super cheap economical car really not my strong suit, the interior is terrible because i cant tweak the engine to be more efficient but at least i tried

gridghost · 2 February 2017 14:26

Great writeup @koolkei, The reason for the looks is that it’s a budgetversion of this one: AUTOMATION PRO LEAGUE 3rd Round: 1955 NASCAR Closed due to lack of interest

abg7 · 2 February 2017 14:35

Love how you separated the true contenders from the half-baked wannabes - can’t wait for the results! It just shows how challenging this round was.

koolkei · 2 February 2017 14:40

dude… rude much?

JohnWaldock · 2 February 2017 14:53

i didn’t think my car was that bad? ithe skinny tires gave me better driveability and better economy

rcracer11m · 2 February 2017 14:54

Thats a problem I’ve noticed with small engine running eco turbos is that it is impossible to make them spool early. I noticed that by decreasing the compressor size it actually increased the spool time and so that messed up my usual turbo strategy.

Hshan · 2 February 2017 15:09

Hmm, I’ll check a few things you’ve complained about I’m not very good at building budget cars, so I might have missed something, but I think most of my choices were somewhat sensible. I6 was surprisingly cheaper than I4 or I3 IIRC.

Madrias · 2 February 2017 15:23

Power steering ruins my great economy figure, that’s why I didn’t include it.

And as for the viscous differential, well, I kinda forgot it wasn’t a Storm car, and clicked it and never looked back.

koolkei · 2 February 2017 15:26

yeah i kinda know, i4 and i3 are the safe route here want better spooling? i6 turbo will do it, but that will end up with too many parts with such small engine. the problem is the turbo itself. you need to be really amazing with the engine tune to really able to compete with the NA. it’s a land of compromise. turbo is more expensive, also ups the running costs. and people would just prefer the NA if there’s no real significant advantage in turbos.

just like irl. the daihatsu copen was it? the kei car one is a 660cc turbo, but the exported one has the option of an NA 1.3L i4

Rk38 · 2 February 2017 15:28

Concise yet thorough and illuminating review of this round and what a diverse set of entries! Now I doubt I’m still in the running but I hopefully I’ll have learned some tips for the developing market and adjusted the design to address most of them.

Actually, I have a bit of a question for you or any way regarding the use of the low friction cast piston everyone always seems to say it has a reliability penalty but it does still boost economy a fair bit. So then when is it ever valid to use it and with which engine internals?

Hshan · 2 February 2017 15:38

Low friction pistons don’t have any reliability penalty directly, but they can withstand much lower revs - even lower than the standard cast, I think. The way I found out to use them effectively is to combine them with a low stroke engine. High stroke alone improves efficiency and (with the same displacement) reduces weight, but oversquare design (high bore, low stroke) with low friction pistons gives even better efficiency* - and, as a side effect of an oversquare design, improves smoothness and allows for higher revs** - at a cost of higher weight, but it’s usually worth it. For me high stroke is useful for extremely efficient engines (pseudo-diesels) or OHV ones, as it allows for the highest revs and perfectly complements OHV’s low weight and small size.

######*than a comparable undersquare design with different pistons
######**compared to a similar oversquare design with low friction pistons - comparable or higher than an undersquare design with standard pistons

koolkei · 2 February 2017 15:40

it doesn’t effect reliability, as long as it’s revving low enough. low friction pistons are ‘weak’ and cannot be revved even a little bit. i don’t think i’ve ever made an engine with low friction cast piston that revved more than 6600.

if you’re clueless how to use them, this should be a good method

just pick an engine size on roughly what you want.
pick the low friction cast.
lower the rev limit down until you’re not losing any significant reliability score anymore.
that’s the limit of the low friction piston in that particular stroke. yes, just stroke, bore size doesn’t effect it directly
now you refine the engine size you want. just remember, the longer the stroke, the lower the revs, and this applies even more significantly to low friction casts.

but also take into consideration that most economy oriented engines have longer stroke than they do bore, because they provide better torque for the size, and undersquared means lighter engine too.

@szafirowy01 well we differ in perspective. this is how i see it. if i want a pure economical engine, just get the stroke as long as reasonably possible. but if you need a little bit of performance, use a square engine at best.

Hshan · 2 February 2017 15:46

Pure economical, yes - then long stroke is good. But eco-only focused engine is rarely needed - usually it’s a matter of balance between economy and performance, and low revs usually harm performance pretty badly. Economy is less harmed by an oversquare engine than performance by an undersquare one.

koolkei · 2 February 2017 15:48

nah mate. bigger capacity, and lower cam profile. same specific power output, more torque, and same if not better fuel economy.

4LGE · 2 February 2017 15:50

By what I could read, me and Phale seem to have actually taken a similiar approach of the “super cheap …box” while Phale’s was very much less dodgy, and I struggled to get everything inlcluding infotainment fitted into that little kei body!
I just had to use that kei body! And embrace its drawbacks.
It has absurdly inefficient aero @~1.000 m^2. I had to actually use fully clad just to fulfill the economy requirements within the theme of “repurposed kei car, slightly altered engine, budget trim”. This on top of basically stripping out everything and making the panels partially out of glued tin foil
The engine itself is more reliable than everything else on that car

Also great no-frills style reviews!

Also, so nice from both of you elaborating on the low friction pistons, @szafirowy01 and @koolkei! Also, don’t forget that a turbo can make the horses gallop earlier in the RPM range

Hshan · 2 February 2017 15:53

Wasn’t even mentioning capacity So you can’t say “nah”, as I fully agree on this (capacity and cam profile) But about the cam profile - I didn’t state it, but I was talking about engines with VVL - in their case combining high revs and economy is not a problem. For the engines without it I didn’t find a “perfect balance” yet.

@4LGE Yeah, I definitely don’t forget about turbo I’ve discovered some interesting things about it, but they weren’t particularly useful in this case - displacement and VVL were more or less enough