Ah cool, thank you! So, I didn’t say anything about that 
The fuel consumption shown in game will be revised upwards in the next big update by 15% 
Consider that these numbers are what the car makers would give in their leaflets, i.e. not necessarily the realistic “normal driver numbers”. It very much depends on the driver too though.
Thank you for the answer!
The best game community I’ve seen in a pre-release phase game, keep up the good work
I know that turbo calculations are high on the list for engine improvements, but this thread has reminded me that when you use a very restrictive turbine with a normally sized compressor you can get dramatically increased fuel economy. It’s most noticeable on undersquare I6 engines where the last few notches of the turbine size give a good few percent increase in efficiency. I have no idea if this is realistic behaviour or not, but it seemed odd enough to be worth pointing out
Do you use an driving cycle like the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) or the EPA FTP 75 to calculate the fuel comsumption? Or is that value an average of fuel consumption at discrete speedvalues, like 50,100,150,200 kph?
We do it as a weighted average of constant speed tests at 30, 50, 70, 90 and 120 km/h, as well as a certain amount of acceleration maneuvers between these speeds.
[quote=“Killrob”]
We do it as a weighted average of constant speed tests at 30, 50, 70, 90 and 120 km/h, as well as a certain amount of acceleration maneuvers between these speeds.[/quote]
Looks like a compressed NEDC/NEFZ 
A sort of ‘test track’ with the speed profile of an time accelerated driving cycle (1220 sec realtime would be way too long) would be a nice option.
[quote=“Sebulba09”]Looks like a compressed NEDC/NEFZ
A sort of ‘test track’ with the speed profile of an time accelerated driving cycle (1220 sec realtime would be way too long) would be a nice option.[/quote]
What would be the gameplay benefit of that though?
Does anyone believe the real world figures anyway?
Mine is supposed to average 41mpg combined, I struggle to get into the 30s, but then there something wrong with right foot, it must have a very high mass
Yes, I’ve had the opposite experience when I forced it 
got a shitty manual car supposed to get 7-8L/100km down to 5.2L/100km… it all depends on the driver.
The phrase more smiles less miles comes to mind
Of course, the consumption’s given by the manufacturer are… hardly… reachable My Opel Astra G 1.7DTI (Yes, Diesel ) can be driven from 4.5L/100km (without any kind of fun or A/C) to 7.8L/100km when doing the topspeed of 170kph and accelerating like an idiot to destroy the front tires ( they were done, it has been the last drive before I had changed them to new tires )
Sidenote: Because of the quiet small intercooler it has (75HP and 150Nm), the performance in the winter around -10°C was amazingly better than in the summer at 30°C It was well noticeable
But in Automation, I recently build a 6.0L V8 with a dual carburetor setup in a quite heavy car ( 1500kg ), and it was supposed to do 10.8L/100km. Hard to believe, when taking into account that it has been a 1970’s car . Can’t image that happen in real world
[quote=“Killrob”]
[quote=“Sebulba09”]Looks like a compressed NEDC/NEFZ
A sort of ‘test track’ with the speed profile of an time accelerated driving cycle (1220 sec realtime would be way too long) would be a nice option.[/quote]
What would be the gameplay benefit of that though?[/quote]
Assumedly a more accurate calculation of fuel consumption, but then you must balance the benefit against the problems arising from that.
2012 Mitsubishi Lancer I was getting 40MPG highway, rated at 34. So booya.
92 toyota corolla 5 speed sedan rated at 32-33US.mpg highway, I was getting 40 easy and could drop my speed to 50-55mph and with care get it to 45mpg and banging away on the loud pedal at starts and keeping it at or over 90 for a 300 mile roadtrip still returned me a 25mpg average. However my 2000 hyundai tiburon is rated at 28 highway and I’ve only ever gotten it to 35mpg, it mostly hovers around the 30 mark unless I have fun, then it drops.
Thats because you use american rating. Try beating european figures, especially with something brand new with start&stop, optimized for low low on-paper values
They’re not really comporable, as US Gallons are something like 15-20% smaller than UK/Euro gallons
My car gets (advertised) 34mpg (US) highway. This equates to 6.9L/100km, or 40.8mpg (imperial).
I actually get 37mpg (US) highway. This equates to 6.4L/100km, or 44.4mpg (imperial).
I know people with my car (who are hyper-milers) getting 50+ (US) mpg combined (60+ highway only). It’s all in how you drive it. I drive mine like a banshee most of the time (gotta love that exhaust note!).
Just for real world references.
The problem is with testing methodology - NEDC, which consist of separate endurance distance test and separate dynamometer test.
Not only do the automakers make cars to get the best results in this methodology (which usually means worse fuel economy in normal traffic use - downsizing is a classic example, with low paper values which can double if you’re not careful with your right foot - if I’m not careful with my 1.4MPI atmospheric engine I can get maybe 1-2l/100km more, with small turbo engines it can be 4-5l/100km more), but they actively use tricks to get even better results. Things like stripped down cars and low friction overpressured tires (which you wont find on the production model) for the endurance distance test and things like altered ECU and high ambient temperature (within limits) for the dyno test.
[quote=“07CobaltGirl”]My car gets (advertised) 34mpg (US) highway. This equates to 6.9L/100km, or 40.8mpg (imperial).
I actually get 37mpg (US) highway. This equates to 6.4L/100km, or 44.4mpg (imperial).
I know people with my car (who are hyper-milers) getting 50+ (US) mpg combined (60+ highway only). It’s all in how you drive it. I drive mine like a banshee most of the time (gotta love that exhaust note!).
Just for real world references. [/quote]
It also depends on where you live/drive. My Sonic Turbo is rated at up to 40 MPG highway. I do about 35% city driving, and average 31.5 MPG, using conservative acceleration and limit my speeds to 63 or below. I live in the Seattle Metro area, which is one of the hilliest major cities in the US. I know guys on the Sonic forums who live in flat states in the Midwest who regularly get 50 MPG. Guess if it’s all flat and wide open there’s nothing to tank your economy.
Then again, on a recent trip home from a camping trip in our Hyundai Entourage (rated at 24 MPG highway), we got 21 MPG in low rolling hills. Oh yeah, forgot to mention the 3000 pound camping trailer we were pulling behind us. I consider that a win. 
But yeah, driver behavior and terrain will greatly affect overall fuel economy, which is why tests are devised to rate cars – in an attempt to be (somewhat) consistent.