Well, you got me there. This s is just a typo 
Iâm having serious trouble trying to get to 17kn/l. Any tips?
the priority to getting lower fuel consumption in order:
- lower weight.
- lower cam profile, lower than 30 preferably. (yes you will be getting low specific output)
- engine overall efficiency.
- transmission efficiency.
- long life tires also gives a little bit
- aerodynamic usually effects only a little bit. except if you have lips and/or wing
Cheers for that. Damn I am bad at this. XD
as for cam profile: 35 seems to be a sweetspot for fuel consumption, and sometimes around 20 is an even better sweetspot. You also can eco turbocharge your engine. Due to lack of turbo tech you canât get good power AND economy, but you can one of those. Squeezing your muffler slightly too tight helps with low end torque and thus economy aswell.
oh. ofc there are some extra trick that you could use. super restrictive exhaust, although limits power and ups the octane requirements, usually end up giving quite a significant bit of more economy.
as for cam profile, i usually dont aim for a specific number but i usually aim for around 30-70HP/liter depending on the year. sometimes going less efficient cam setting but lower profile anyway can still give quite a boost of economy.
as for turbos⌠i donât know what im doing. itâs just trial and error for me.
and if youâre feeling brave and have the extra budget, VVL does wonders. give you the economy of a lower cam profile with the performance of a higher ones. but theyâre quite a bit more sensitive with the settings, and the reliability penalty, as well as the extra weight, means youre getting only about 80% of the lower cam profile effect and 80% of the high profile effect.
@Koolkei: Wait VVL? You mean VVT, right, because Iâd be all over VVL. I donât think Iâm getting a VVL option when I do it (Iâll have to check again)
AlsoâŚI started typing and thinking a lot about getting fuel econ up and you guys beat me to it (I need to refresh more) but I wrote this up:
It involves stuff youâre probably already familiar with, but maybe to extremes you may not be comfortable with, which was the biggest headache for me when trying to get my sedan to make the cut.
I guess first things first is check out your engines efficiency and horsepower. Power is the tradeoff for efficiency so if itâs too powerful itâs not going to be remarkably efficient. A HP range of 50-80 (with 50 being low power high efficiency and 80 being high power low efficiency) is probably where youâll be. A lower cam profile will hurt HP output but will save on efficiency, around 30 is probably best. Also consider making the exhaust smaller, again it will kill HP but the efficiency will go up. You can also up the quality sliders on the fuel injector or compression ratio tabs to eek out some more efficiency.
You will probably have a low power engine. You can produce a more powerful engine (although for general efficiency the 70-80 HP range is probably pushing it for this challenge given the constraints so shoot for 50-70), but then it comes down to weight. Make sure your engine isnât too large. Anything under 1.5L can be made to work, assuming its 4 or 6 cylinders (though 6 is heavier, generally), but it can be difficult and since making the engine out of aluminum is probably out of the question you have to make it smaller in order to not be too heavy.
Which leads to the second part of weight. If the car weighs too much the powerful engine while being strong enough to push it around will find its fuel economy lacking. Now you can try to push the gearing past the estimated top speed which does have the effect of increasing the fuel economy, but only to a point. Once you reach that then you just have to strip things out. Remove seats, remove the radio, a less intricate safety package, choose a lighter front and rear suspension set-up, choose lighter brake pad options, use standard suspension springs. If you do all that and youâve not hit the range then begin to lower quality sliders, Iâd begin with seats. Lower that slider all the weigh down (-15). Then move onto removing the undertray (or if Full switch to semi, and if not enough then remove, this will effect fuel economy too). Then return to the very first model tab and lower the slider there to reduce weight. Read the sliders to make sure it lowers weight, if it doesnât specifically say âlower weightâ donât touch it, it probably wonât help. You can also lower tire width (say 165mm instead of 175mm).
So a more itemized list:
-Increase engine efficiency: roughly 30 cam profile, small exhaust, increase fuel tab sliders [last]),
-Manage weight: remove extra seats (then lower sliders), remove the radio, lower safety (then lower sliders), lower sliders on first model tab, make a smaller engine, use lighter suspension, and choose lighter springs
Be careful with upping sliders b/c that will increase production units, which are something to keep an eye on in this comp.
To get my sedan to work I had a lot of -15 quality sliders. I probably missed some, but that should be a lot of things to considerâŚ
edit: fixed the hp range
no. i really meant VVL. although its not available in-game on year '93. that was just in general.
(VVT are a no brainer, iâm always tempted to use high-tech high efficiency, high quality engines, which always end up being too expensive.)
also, we have quite the different approaches dont we. quite the opposite.
you say engine efficiency is more important.
i say weight is more important.
because as i see it. a 1.5l engine making 70HP vs 1l engine also making 70HP will probably get similiar fuel economy, but i think the 1l has the edge. because even when it need to be pushed more, purely the engine weight itself is lower. not to mention cornering performance will of course improve.
and i blatantly REFUSE to use any negative quality slider to lower weight, unless itâs necessary to pinch every dollar, due to the reliability penalty it comes along with.
(i think this is why my âeconomicalâ cars usually end up being slightly more reliable than average. but only the âcheapâ cars)
and on the engine tab, the fuel tab sliders are always the first one to get any quality points for me.
reasons? it gives the best bang for buck. gives highest reliability per points, lowers octane requirements quite a bit, and gives an acceptable efficiency boost. the highest being valvetrain tab, which usually is the second tab i give quality to, after that, exhaust also often gets a little bit, just because theyâre cheap, i usually gives what budget leftover to exhaust.
and suspension setups are just pretty much doesnât effect economy enough on this challenge. itâs another matter if youâre using hyrdopneumatic, or active suspensions
and tires are the sensitive ones. too thin and your stats get quite a bit of penalty, too wide, your economy gets a penalty. although itâs not as dramatic of an effect on long life tyres than it is on sports compound.
and. aero⌠just give at least +1 on all your cars. it only cost a penny and gives up to 0.1km/l depending on the car.
@nial i just remembered. i think i forgot to rename my cars to NEC-***** and itâs retaining itâs actual name. sorry. do you want me to resubmit with the correct name, or can you just make an exception? or something else
Small update: I have not had much time for reviewing cars yet, I had a small chance a few days ago and most are good, I sent a few PMâs but I didnât make a list of approved entries yet. After my turn for the car shopping round ends and I post the reviews and winners to that challenge I will start a list of received and accepted entries to this challenge. So keep the entries coming, I currently have about 21 sitting in my inbox so it looks like this is a pretty lively contest so far.
Damn! Looking forward to the reviews. And good luck with those too!
@Koolkei: Ah you were giving general fuel economy advice, thatâs my bad. I thought you were mentioning it for this competition. VVT can go either way for me. It doesnât always add a lot, but it doesnât cost that much more either.
Honestly I donât value one over the other. I can see why you think that based on my wording so I canât fault you. I explained it the way I did because you design the engine first. Since I tend to go with power first and only look at efficiency at the end, I laid it out that way to appeal more to the same sort of person. The type of person who needs to say âItâs ok that itâs not making at least 100HP because you got to keep those fuel numbers upâ to correct any problem with the inappropriateness of the engine. To use the 1.5L and 1L engine comparison, I was correcting the 1.5L having 100HP vs the 1Lâs 70HP. Once you reign in the 1.5L then you realize itâs probably bigger than it needs to be. Then we move onto the next section of the car where you can manage the weight given an appropriate engine.
The reliability penalty, to me at least, isnât really that big a dealâŚwell depends on what you are touching. You take a bigger hit from installing a basic radio than slamming the seat slider all the way down to lose the weight, for example. Of course I really donât like not including a radio and I really donât like basic seats if I can help it. Although the sedan required drastic choices to make it work with what I wanted. Iâm not submitting the sedan, but it was useful for insight.
Fuel sliders probably should be what gets your points first always. I merely mention it as being the last thing you should do because of the need to manage production units. You donât want to go too crazy with the sliders early on. Front and rear suspension setups do carry weight (unless the weight stat listed there means something else), the Macpherson weigh less than Double Wishbone. Just as torsion beam is the lightest in the rear (well Pushrods are lighter, but theyâre probably out of reach here.) They also have production unit and cost considerations, which is probably the more pressing issue for that choice. Same with suspension spring choice Standard/Progressive (I did leave out progressive) weigh ânothingâ unlike hydropneumatic. Standard and progressive are similar although progressive are slightly more expensive material and PU wise. Active setups become available later, but also weigh more, yes. I merely meant donât use hydropneumatic really.
I didnât include tires on my itemized list, but I did mention them right before.
Eh +1 aero might cost almost nothing but makes it more costly in terms of production, as the difference between 251 and 249 cars per day. If youâve got the room sure; do you, have at it hoss.
For general notes: Iâve found that sometimes, using active suspension ruins the fuel economy far beyond what would be considered commensurate for the weight gain. Iâm still not sure why.
For my 3 door hatch, I found that fuel economy potential was best when I was using a 1.3L turbo. Why would that be? One wonders. I suspect itâs due to being able to gear the car and have the torque curve such that it wasnât struggling to make the speeds the economy test required in the first place. At least, it was there, with approximately 100hp, that I was hitting in excess of 50mpg.
well⌠yes. i probably went with the smallest engine on this one. (52mpg, but i was hitting it with HP figures around 40-ish)
this challenge kinda prioritize the engine quality without making it too expensive, and cut corners where you can everywhere else.
that said. my âfor funâ car managed to fit a pushrod suspension on the back 
[size=70]and i believe i still holds the automation record for fuel economy⌠@ 83.3km/l[/size]
wait. 50mpg+ with engine larger than 1l? O_O whatâs the weight of your car?
900kg. I went all -12 on the panels 
^
HIGH 5. -11 on the panel = 850kgs HUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
At least mine wonât be found in pieces on the side of the road with rust holes in it. 0 quality on the panels.
If my car rusts and has holes in it, itâll get even lighter = more speed bruh 
Also the extra weight in my car mainly comes from the engine. Also I havenât even told anybody about the LSD I snuck in there >_>
ohhh. those LSD⌠they give you a good trip and make your trip good 
If only we still had the option of polymer panels 
Mine weighs less than 800 kg with only -4 on the panels. But I did use quite a few lightweight materialsâŚ
It is not recommend that you drive the Solo Eco BM in very high winds.
You are also surely using a smaller platform, no?
If not, then maybe you are using aluminium panels, but that canât be the case, because otherwise how would you then reach the required PU? And all aluminium in 1993 is limited production.