These are some extensive reviews. Count me impressed
I see one or two enquiries about discrepancies between what the reviewer saw and what the submitting user expected. They look like they need to be resolved before cuts and final decisions are made.
For comparison, here’s a look at the Ox’s engine:
It’s a 2.0L port-injected 16V DOHC I4 with VVT and VVL, aluminum/silicon block and heads, and low-friction cast pistons. The short stroke of 77.2 mm ensures that this engine can rev to 6600 rpm without any problems at all - any higher and the pistons would show signs of stress.
uh huh. not an information anyone was asking for but meh
this is the end of the post and i cannot see this post has any meaning aside from showing you your e-peen because “I CAN BUILD A BETTER ENGINE BYABYABYABYABYA, it doesn’t have this problem that engine A has BYABYABYABYA”
might i add that your engine is fucking gutless?
okay i may be a bit too rough. but my point is just asking. what is the point of your post? are you trying to compare it? are you trying to give advice by lowering the stroke and/or redline?
what is it?
i can’t get anything.
I only meant to remind myself (and others) about the fact that low friction cast pistons are not very strong, and cannot withstand high revs as much as regular or hypereutectic cast pistons. I wasn’t even trying to show that I could build a better engine, but to highlight the potential problems of combining low friction pistons with a high redline. Given the engine’s dimensions and lack of quality slider use (positive or negative), 6600 rpm was as high as I could set the rev limiter without suffering any major reliability issues. And yes, the engine is clearly short on power, but I didn’t think very much about performance this round.
I’ve noticed things like this before during my playtime. I have previously mentioned the drivability being wrong until I did something and regained the lost points (+1 quality and back down to 0 again).
I’ve also seen an engine that is perfect but when I returned to it the engine was classed as knocking, with any XX.0 fuel rating…maybe the RON result is 91.01 when it was opened on another PC…which would give yellow pistons because it exceeds the rating.
I’m not as proficient as you guys (in ANY aspect of the game!) but know that you try to squeeze every .001 RON out of the fuel system.
As far as I am concerned I would open the car, as is, and take it at face value even though it could piss someone off because it’s fine on their machine but not mine.
In these cases I’d call it the “manufacturer’s values” vs “real end user values”.
But this is entirely my take, and opinion, on the situation…I’ll put my kevlar on and hide behind this rock before you start shooting!
i’m genuinely just asking for now… yes my reliability may be high. but i do have a -1 point on the bottom end.so im wondering if that -1 is really the cause of my car getting instabinned?
This may be acceptable, but I think given the way the game is (at the moment) and how we’ve been treating those discrepancies in values, I wouldn’t do this without adding a really big disclaimer at the start of the event. The onus on a user to predict the way in which their vehicles will change where there is no guarantee of transparency or consistency from the host end is just too much of a liability.
Hehe, I guessed it even before the pretty exhaustive and indepth review, as i managed to set it up with more of a standard/sporty setup rather than an offroad one… shouldn’t make cars when tired Good work and nice reviews @KA24DE
Does your engine lose reliability because of the bottom end internals’ excessive RPM? I thought that was what @KA24DE was measuring. I.e. if you reduce the stroke does reliability increase?
From my findings, increasing Bore will increase reliability. This is because by increasing stroke you are increasing length of the conrods in the engine. (seen in the image below)
This means there is more moving mass which means that the bearings on the crankshaft are loaded more, increasing wear. This also means at higher RPM’s there is more vibration which stresses engine parts more decreasing reliability. This is why engines with more bore tend to rev higher and have increased reliability over an engine of the same size with more stroke. However this still doesn’t mean that extremely large engines with few cylinders (like a 4.0l i4) will have increased reliability.
This may not be fully accurate as I do not have a qualification in Engineering…
Sure, but I’m talking about this specific case in Automation that reliability starts to drop if the redline is set above the tolerance of the internals, which is easiest to test by simply reducing stroke one tick to see if reliability increases.
Sorry for the delay guys; I had to go to a funeral Sunday for a family member that passed away on Saturday, before I even finished all the reviews… I just needed a bit of time to get away from everything.
@JohnWaldock, Sorry, I use aluminum and aluminum-silicon alloy interchangably. The material wasn’t why I failed you though, it was the “bottom end part is reducing the reliability, as it is reaching its RPM limit” flag, along with the rod-knock noise. Your engine needed either stronger pistons or a lower maximum RPM. Raising the quality is another method.
@koolkei, Same story. At the redline of 5,400rpm that you set; I get “bottom end part is reducing the reliability, as it is reaching its RPM limit” on the rod, long with the rod-knock noise. You needed to either drop the RPM by 100, or use better rods, or up the quality.
@LordLetto, Yeah, I’m sorry… but I felt the “reducing reliability flag” is a no go.
Is that unreasonable? To me, that flag indicates that a component is highly stressed, and it will fail over time.
@Leedar Yeah, you do bring up a point. I just saw that the brakes weren’t able to lock the average width tires, and felt that was enough to qualify for underpowered. It may not be.
@KA24DE It’s all cool mate, i’m not worried about waiting for reviews. I hope you have time to feel better to maintain the high quality of review that you have kept up so far. Just keep in mind that some do get rather impatient and start posting nonsense, but I hope that you are back to your normal state soon
The rev is at the limit of reliability. 100rpm drop would make it from 81.3 to 81.6, but it would make the peak power at cutoff. Not much point. But 100 more and it drops to 78.9. So exactly on the limit.
And i did check it testing it manually. I did not hear anything wrong or did see any yellowing at any point in the rev range iirc from the top of my head…
Well either way. Just continue on the reviews. I’m gonna accept the result as is currently. I don’t want to make the round getting dragged on for too long. And i hope @Rk38 would accept that too?
Though, i want someone else for a favor and re-verify it for me. I’m gonna upload the car when i get home. Since this is a problem i never encountered.
Edit: i just noticed your wording. So you hover your mouse to every part on your tests to see the warnings before there’s any yellowing? Because kee does throw that warning well before it affects anything or show any visible yellowing. Proof? Try going up on the bottom end quality from the -1 that i set to 0 or +1. An engine with a problematic bottom end stress would gain 2.0 or more reliability per point. But mine would only go up to like 81.8. So i guess it’s a misinformation on my part then. Sorry
@Leedar yeah. For automation specifically. The more revs you want, the less stroke you need if you want to keep reliability up
Yes, I always check every part for that flag, but I hear the “damage noise” from the test on your engine; which is why I was quick to drop it. I have to admit though, going back to it, Automation triggers the flag and the damage sound, but the reliability hit is just 0.1 to get rid of the flag; very insignificant.
Alright, I feel like I owe the Mitaishi a test drive. I’ll make a little story out of one and post it here.
As for the bore/stroke debate; a longer stroke increases mean piston speed. Higher speed means more load on components. This does not automatically mean less reliability though; assuming the engine in question is designed with such stress in mind.
I’m familiar with my namesake for example, and it has a 96mm stroke and spins to 6,500rpm. That means her pistons are traveling at almost 21m/s. For a comparison; race engine piston speeds reach 25m/s, while most production engines of the era are in the range of 16-19m/s. KAs have a powder-sinter forged crank and rods to cope with it, and fairly lightweight pistons; albeit just hypereutectic cast ones. The crankshaft bearings are reinforced with a ladder-frame crank girdle as well. Even though it is a long stroke design and has rather high piston speeds; it is an engine known for having a very durable bottom-end; pistons aside.
That said, with all materials being equal; there will be be less stress on the engine with a shorter stroke, and so it will theoretically be more reliable.
@koolkei I don’t really mind, I mean really I didn’t expect anything more than being instabin’d for such pretentious advertising and styling so anything after that first review is a bonus.
@KA24DE Do what you feel you need to but know you’ve been a great job on the detail and story of the reviews!
On the plus side in UE4 the interface shows the actual degree of reliability penalty for a stressed part as well as the maximum stress free limits of the part which is fantastic and will obviate this controversy.
Cool-K - CSR52-Rk38-koolkei.zip (49.9 KB)
as i’ve said here is our car. i want someone else’s view or hearing on it…