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?
I’m eager to see how the new big update will kick up or down everyones stats xD
http://i.imgur.com/DtdPlNO.jpgI did just get 160 mpg.
As a bit of a hint, Strop you’re using the wrong body.
From screwing around with the .Lua files, I imagine that the best body is the not-CRX, due to it’s extremely low Cd?
I’ll try it, but it’s not what i’m using.
Are you guys running any cooling for the engine? I was running the bare minimum to keep the engine cool.
zero cooling.
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!
You have to appreciate the cars that get 160mpg+, but break down in 75 miles due to lack of cooling 
.
LOL yeah [size=85]and also rack up $70000 and 1000+ production units in build costs[/size]
Got it down to 1.36L/100km.
Which is about:
173 miles per uk gallons.
or
207.7 miles per us gallons.
Lol that’s awesome.
Actually now genuinely curious as to your approach, purely in the case I ever want to build a cheap eco car… Or even run an ultra eco challenge…
CRX body.
+15 most sliders.
Smallest I4 possible, tuned for maximum efficiency (stayed NA)
105s all corners.
Everything tuned to reduce weight, so smallest brakes, no safety, -15 interior, 4 speed gearbox.
And no cooling. Does 1.48L/100km with enough cooling to have the reliability higher than zero.
The car costs like 100000$ to make.
Surprisingly, even though it only has ~25 hp, it has 23 sportiness.
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!
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.
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.
I find 8 gears is more economical than 4.
you’re right, using 8 gears, I got my build up to 189.1mpg with 0.5 reliability… absolutely hilarious top speed gearing of 834km/h though
(build year 2015 btw)
Sorry for the crappy printscreen, but I made this in the demo…
252.4 MPG (UK)
210.2 MPG (US)
1.12 lt/100km
This could probably be beaten with a lighter/more aerodynamic body, but for now…
Oh and this is my first post, after over a year of lurking…
Well, I’m really impressed!
(Also, since I’m not very good at tuning low-end power engines, how did you get 10.8hp @ 2000rpm?