Lessons Learned

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.

1 Like

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

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.

2 Likes

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.

oh my christ no. that design is haunting.

no, no, no.

3 Likes

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

3 Likes

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)

6 Likes


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)

1 Like

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

8 Likes

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.

7zip is free

3 Likes

And it works pretty well.

Or you can use the infinite winrar test period XD.

6 Likes

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)

1 Like

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


Euro market (at least until the 90s) was very predominantly a market with sub 2L, inline 4 engines, with the 2l being already the upper end of the midsize segment.

Anything over 2l/180 inches would have been full size / midsize luxury.

Germany was a bit specific, but even there you had small displacements. The low-end Mercedes C series (or BMW 5 series) were the bulk of the Euro market, with the higher end engines made almost exclusively for the US market (and also the numerous US military present in Germany at the time, which also explain why there is somewhat of a market for Camaros and Mustangs)

The main reasons were the taxes. France and Italy had a “luxury tax”, which implied a steep increase for anything over 2000 cc - which is the reason why you’ll find, for instance, a domestic-market only “Ferrari 208 GTB”, for instance, with a turbocharged 2 liters V8 (!) instead of the 3 liters V8 of the Ferrari 308.

You’ll also find somewhat the same specifics in Japan, with not only the famed Kei Cars but also a lot of sub-2000 cars, intended for domestic market, with the larger displacements targeted specifically for the US.

With the 80’s deregulation, most of the tax incentives to go small disappeared, and you had a blossoming of V6 in the high ends in France and Italy, as well as a developpment of the V8 and even V12 in German cars, from the late 80s up to the late 00s (where we entered the downsizing era)

1 Like

Volvo 850 T5R had a 5 cyl 2.0t engine only for the Italian and Japanese? markets.
All other got a “2.5 liter” (2435cc)

Learning my lesson, I put into a Euro challenge, with a Euro-sized engine. More like this is a cheap knockoff if you will; seems to be a common theme with my Giusseppe brand…GS - Roadster Clone Clone.car (31.4 KB)
GS - Roadster Clone.car (31.4 KB)
Nonetheless (and I cannot remember which is which), I built one with an American Spec M3 engine. Both came out around the same price, same amount of production units (within a couple thousand dollars).


I like the front, I swear I did this design before, with a better profile view, and I’m not entirely happy with the rear; I tried to do something, but I’m not too skilled at it apparently.

2 Likes

In 1993 the 190/C-class was the smallest Mercedes available.
And the 2 litre engine in the V70 is mostly for markets where cars are taxed after engine size. V70s sold in Sweden, for example, have the 2.4 litre.

I feel like you need to maybe learn a lesson or two in Design Consistency and Era Accuracy.

The Front and rear don’t seem to be from the same car, there’s no consistency. The front looks late 80’s, and the back looks modern. Those wheels are a tad big for 2001, too. It looks like it’s a 1980’s concept front wedged onto a 2010’s retro concept’s back.

7 Likes