Record holders

BlastersPewPew · 5 February 2015 21:40

[quote=“supraman”]can we get a section to show who currently has the most hp, torque, mpg and so on in the game?

I feel as this could make a little friendly competition as well as allow people to see peoples achievements and set a goal for themselves.

for example I just built a car that has 55mpg and I am wondering if anyone has gotten better.[/quote]

I just built a car that gets 138.8 US MPG (1.69 L/100km), I would not want to buy it or drive it though, it isnt very fast, comfy or quick off the line BUT you wont have to fill up often.

rileybanks · 5 February 2015 22:58

140.7 US MPG

TrackpadUser · 6 February 2015 00:52

[quote=“BlastersPewPew”]

[quote=“supraman”]can we get a section to show who currently has the most hp, torque, mpg and so on in the game?

I feel as this could make a little friendly competition as well as allow people to see peoples achievements and set a goal for themselves.

for example I just built a car that has 55mpg and I am wondering if anyone has gotten better.[/quote]

I just built a car that gets 138.8 US MPG (1.69 L/100km), I would not want to buy it or drive it though, it isnt very fast, comfy or quick off the line BUT you wont have to fill up often.[/quote]

Well, there are some hyper-mileage competitions and most cars are very small and not really fast.

There is one being displayed at my university and it’s basically a fully enclosed velomobile with a gas engine in it.

strop · 6 February 2015 02:05

Damn that’s pretty impressive. Eco’s not my thing, but it might be fun to try seeing just how further one can go.

What’s more important, weight or drag?

WizzyThaMan · 6 February 2015 11:19

I’m eager to see how the new big update will kick up or down everyones stats xD

rileybanks · 6 February 2015 18:09

http://i.imgur.com/DtdPlNO.jpgI did just get 160 mpg.
As a bit of a hint, Strop you’re using the wrong body.

TrackpadUser · 6 February 2015 19:17

From screwing around with the .Lua files, I imagine that the best body is the not-CRX, due to it’s extremely low Cd?

rileybanks · 6 February 2015 19:32

I’ll try it, but it’s not what i’m using.

BlastersPewPew · 6 February 2015 19:53

Are you guys running any cooling for the engine? I was running the bare minimum to keep the engine cool.

rileybanks · 6 February 2015 20:16

zero cooling.

strop · 6 February 2015 20:36

Oh, I’m running minimum cooling. Makes a little difference. Also the fact I was trying out a brick

Lower drag body it is then!

Jakgoe · 6 February 2015 21:01

You have to appreciate the cars that get 160mpg+, but break down in 75 miles due to lack of cooling .

strop · 6 February 2015 22:25

LOL yeah [size=85]and also rack up $70000 and 1000+ production units in build costs[/size]

TrackpadUser · 6 February 2015 23:49

Got it down to 1.36L/100km.

Which is about:

173 miles per uk gallons.
or
207.7 miles per us gallons.

strop · 7 February 2015 00:10

Lol that’s awesome.

Actually now genuinely curious as to your approach, purely in the case I ever want to build a cheap eco car… Or even run an ultra eco challenge…

TrackpadUser · 7 February 2015 00:49

CRX body.

+15 most sliders.

Smallest I4 possible, tuned for maximum efficiency (stayed NA)

105s all corners.

Everything tuned to reduce weight, so smallest brakes, no safety, -15 interior, 4 speed gearbox.

And no cooling. Does 1.48L/100km with enough cooling to have the reliability higher than zero.

The car costs like 100000$ to make.

Surprisingly, even though it only has ~25 hp, it has 23 sportiness.

strop · 7 February 2015 02:48

Probably because it’s so damn light. A quick look at the detailed stats would be quite revealing.

In low powered cars, the drag becomes a defining feature of the economy calculations then!

TrackpadUser · 7 February 2015 04:01

Sorry for the very crappy crop.

Edit: It says 1.48 L/100km because I added some cooling so the engine has more than 0 reliability. Putting the slider at zero brings it to the values I quoted earlier.

strop · 7 February 2015 07:08

Hm, I don’t know how on earth you managed to get over 200mpg US with no ventilation! (But I’m not very good at configuring cars with 0 ventilation).

Instead, I have one with a positive engine reliability (0.7) that does 1.39L/100km, or 169.3mpg, but no way can I get that tune to over 200mpg ever!

Interestingly enough, it’s… much more powerful, and pretty quick too, what with a power:weight ratio of about 160hp:tonne. And if I sacrifice about 0.3mpg to put in larger wheels (13" instead of 10"), my car goes… a lot faster around Nordschleife (9:32.87 to be precise!)… sacrifice another 0.4mpg to make them 16" rims and it goes to 9:26.76

There’s potential for something possibly interesting here… stay tuned, I’m going to set something up.

rileybanks · 7 February 2015 11:25

I find 8 gears is more economical than 4.