Production units are actually estimating the amount of direct labor required. Since the actual time taken building the car and the cost of the direct labor depends on the factory (its automation or location for an instance), it makes more sense to use a factory-independent measure before the factory the car is produced in known
Does this mean each factory may have a higher level off efficiency dependant on location/supervisor and worker skillset/world events/automation and this acts as a modifier to the actual $ value?
Clarification please - Iāve reread the regs/brief several times but Iām slightly confused by the wording.
Does the EFI lessons come off my bottom line, per vehicle? (ie, A base level SP EFI vehicle would actually be 11000, plus the 1k lesson, then +2 EFI would be 10800, etc)
Or is there another arrangement Iām too thick or close minded to grasp?
actually. yes.
just the total of the car + the EFI maintenance training lesson (if you choose to) = $12000
and the lessons cost based on the quality of the fuel injection systems.
i wanted to emulate that for the mechanics, the new injector technology is pretty complicated enough. but then if youāre using a ābetterā injection system that means youāre using more complex systems which also āemulatesā that the training needs to be longer and/or the tools needed to service the vehicle costs more.
#ripenglish
so many grammar mistakes.
1 Like
Makes sense when explained that way, thanks mate.
While youāre online @koolkei, whats the lowest fuel octane in the region?
If itās regional enough of a site, Iād assume 80 octane (slightly refined oil) however my competitors seem to be assuming somewhat more then that?
waitwaitwait, so your saying my V12 Injection is possibly a bad idea???
1 Like
please. use the post edit instead of double posting.
anyway. yes, thereās no threshold of what fuel you have to use. 1 even chose to use 95RON.
but being able to use 80 octane is the best, since, even though itās an oil company, refined fuel supply is limited, and at times, we are forced to use old and relatively unsuitable fuel. the old car was able to drink almost any kind of fuel you have, a couple of times, even fuel mixed with kerosene just because we were that low on fuel. although most chose to use 91 octane.
TL;DR most use 91 octane. while 80octane is not necessary, it give quite a bit of fuel flexibility bonus, that is, if you think losing efficiency and power is worth the fuel flexibility.
@JohnWaldock nonono. itās a terrific idea!, itāll be the clown car of the pack 
nah, seriously, if you can somehow make it stick, itāll have a pretty interesting result
i think iām safe in saying that i will win in Torque
Hmm i know I am late to the party but I have a broad question about mfi. On mechanical injection could we assume that using a single throttle with 4 injector nozzles and a belt driven injector pump to be closer in game to an older diesel like setup than a racing/drag mechanical injection setup. In that the pump controls fuel output to each individual cylinder and is the ābrainsā and can be rebuilt like a standard diesel fuel pump? Or is it simply a flying toilet setup with poor starting, idling and no rate adjustment etc as found on nostalgic drag cars?
no. i googled about it, and i saw alfaās version of exactly what you just interpreted. thatā particular article is the last nail that made me just plainly banned it.
the WOT mechanical injectors are just not for road use.
is SPMFI still ok?
what even is that?
K Kool. Mech inj is a pain to use IRL but in game it does look very diesil like Google pre common rail deisel patrol to c wat I meant. IRL Centrepoint injection is way easier if it is self learning but doesnāt get this performance replicated in gameā¦sorry off trackā¦
OK spmfi would be a Centrepoint setupā¦In game we only have two injectors shown as per the early setups but modern incorporate 4 injectors, tps, map sensors, and ecu in the one part like a F.A.S.T system. The issue is that the intake manifold runs āwetā the same as a carb setup with similar fuel atomization obviously a cpfi will have better emissions and a cleaner burn as the injectors can regulate fuel flow much better however a wet manifold will never perform as well a a dry manifold where the fuel is injected into the combustion chamber and the manifold can have internal trumpets/dual length runners that a wet manifold canāt have due to backfire and fuel pooling risks.
yeah. whereās diesels dev?
the question remains. can you repair this system on the side of the road with minimal tools?
that was the spirit. itās being used in who-knows-where. most maintenance are done by the mechanics on site, often on the field. mechanical injection? maybe you can, but the pain doesnāt outweigh the benefits it gives compared to efi.
also, halfway through your postā¦ you lost meā¦
are you comparing SPMFI to modern electronic MPFI?
1 Like
Yes. Basically a Centre point efi system runs the same as a carb mixing fuel and air in the intake manifold where a multi port only runs air in the manifold and only mixes with fuel as it enters the intake runner before the valve. Both require an ecu controlling the rate at which the injectors open and how long they stay open. Both require a O2 sensor and some form of air flow reading device. And both require high pressure fuel pumps lines and regulators.
Single point EFI or MP EFI is more serviceable in the field then mechanical.
More moving components, regardless of how effective it can be.
It would be an interesting rule to get around the $1K EFI training though for some competitors.
Single Point Mechanical Fuel Injection. (i know its a single throttle, sue me)
1 Like
A rugged, practical, speedy when required fleet vehicle? Have I got the car for you. This is not only a car, but it is Petoskey Motorsā Gold Standard when it comes to fleet vehicles. To suit your unique requirements I present to you:
THE GRAN ROMERO!
Built since 1980 as an all around general purpose car, the Gran Romero has proven itself as a reliable choice for taxi companies and municipal fleets.
The car has really shined in the hands of the police, a special Interceptor variant has proven to be a solid choice for city and highway pursuit.
But your designs prove the need for versatility, something where the Gran Romero excels. This particular variant uses a QUADROPED 4WD system mated to a solid 4RH3 transmission. The engine of choice in your case must certainly be the 301 V8. To keep things simple a two barrel carburetor allows for mechanical simplicity while reducing the consumption of fuel. Admittedly the car is restrictive in cargo space, though folding rear seats allow for additional storage. The rugged powertrain is also adaptable for towing capability so that which does not fit on the car shall fit on a trailer behind it. Youāll find the Gran Romero far more comfortable than your previous fleet car which is an important thing heading to the job site. Itās much harder to focus on getting the job done when youāve got an ache in your back courtesy of poor seating.
The versatile Gran Romero can be yours for only $11990.
2 Likes
Mr Shearston,
We at Solo Motors Co. have received your request about a fleet vehicle and are honoured for your interest in our company. Based on your description of the fleet vehicle KRK Corp. is looking for, we believe the 1986 Solo Rocky CM (pictured below) would be of interest to your company.
This model is shown in generic white with optional floodlights. We have 12 available colour choices and will also produce the vehicles with a custom corporate colour at a premium dependent on the number of ordered vehicles.
The Solo Rocky CM is the commercial variant of our Rocky off road wagon. Commercial features include a higher roof, a basic yet rugged interior with seating for six, rear wheel drive (we have a commercial 4x4 model as well but the better value of this model appears to better fit your needs), and the hardiest of available Rocky engines: the 4.2L push rod V8. I should mention that a third row bench seat that increases the seating capacity to nine is an available option, should you eventually need it.
The 4.2L push rod V8 available in this model produces 182 hp and 227 ft-lb of torque and is paired to a 5 speed manual transmission. The fuel economy of 15 l/100 km is substantially better than your current vehicle. We do admit that it is far from a spectacular number, but such is the trade off for the mechanical simplicity of carburretors and push rods. We believe it to be a fair trade off for your needs, but I should point out that we have a fuel injected overhead cam V8 as an available choice for this model.
Standard features on all variants of the Rocky sold in Australia include solid axel coil suspension, galvanized steel frame, corrosion resistant steel body, 16" steel wheels, manual locker, offroad skidtray, front disc brakes, running boards, and solid steel bumpers. The Solo reliability is also always present, so rest assured that this vehicle should live a long life.
There was a mention about some minor recreational racing in your brief, so I figure the performance figures are of interest to you as well. This version of the Rock CM will take you from standing to 100 km/h in 8.1 seconds, reach a top speed on 194 km/h (though we do not recommend it), and travel a quarter mile from standstill in 16.26 seconds. It will travel less than 40 m when braking from 100 km/h.
The Solo Rocky CM as presented falls below your budget of $12,000 with estimated running costs under $3,000 per year. With the standard Solo fleet vehicle warranty, we assure you that chousing Solo Motors Co. for your next purchase will be of excellent value for your company. Please contact me if there is any information I have missed in this letter that is not available in the provided brochure.
Sincerely,
Allen Watson, Commercial Division Manager - Oceania
2 Likes