My Engine and Cars:
Looks like the field is filling up so far. @Rk38 has built a 3.0-liter V6 for a great-looking lineup which actually delivers on its promises, although I needed one fewer car for this challenge. @Sillyducky also used a turbo I4, but itâs a larger overhead-valve design; mine has dual overhead cams and has 20% less capacity.
And after seeing the lineup presented by @thecarlover, I am quite convinced, although the high power output of its single overhead camshaft V6 (with 3 valves per cylinder) comes at the expense of economy. Time will tell if being the tortoise is better than being the hare. One thing is certain, though: four or six cylinders are sufficient for this challenge - any more would be unnecessary and unaffordable.
Here is a three vehicle lineup from Duo, using the same naturally aspirated SOHC 3.2L V6. The engine produces 204 hp and 211 ft-lb of torque.
Duo Cross B
Duo Trot B
Duo Econo B
2 Likes
Oh, I didnât realise! Thank you to whoever fixed that for me.
Thanks, I wanted to get a way to show of the group of them together.
@abg7 Actually my engine is a 2998cc displacement V6 officially listed as a 3.0L
@thecarlover Whoa, nice lineup! I particularly like that Duo Trot B.
okay. letâs start on some cars based on the pythonâs engine lineup 
(man am i abusing that engine)
You are awfully late, but Iâll extend the deadline for you 
Anybody else working on some last minute submissions?
wait. isnât it today? the deadline?
Erm. Well, the original deadline was Friday 8/5 at midnight EST. But seeing as how there appears to have been some confusion, Iâll give everyone another day to submit. Let me know if you need more time!
Deadline is now Sunday, 8/7 at 11:59PM EST. That is 21 hrs 30 min from now.
yeah. itâs a habit i formed on this forum.
Deadline : 1 week from now
âoh. then âdeadlineâ+1 day it is for me thenâ. because timezoneâŚ
Sorry phase I meant to enter but my computer has nuked itself. Good luck to all looking forward to seeing the overall competition
is the light sport category, encaptures all of them? the normal, the budget, and the premium ones. or are you only taking account the normal ones?
Only the normal one, no premium or budget.
Sorry to hear that, I was really excited to see your V8 city car haha.
put in the stats yesterday. but only got time to posting the car now.
here it is
the only one that has desirability penalty
most of these carâs aesthetics were done at midnight while iâm trying to get sleep as soon as possible while fighting off procrastination to finish all these carsâŚ
guess which option won?
The high-capacity atmo I4 you opted for is much better than I thought it would be. Itâs not the smoothest choice but it does its job well.
Review time! I have decided to review every car and every engine that was sent to me, yes every one! The engines will get an in-depth review but the cars will get shorter blurbs. Also, you should know that Iâm going to be very critical in these reviews. Please donât take any of my critique personally; Iâm just trying to offer advice for how to get better competitiveness scores. And Iâm also not going to be very âlore-friendlyâ, so if your design choices are specific to your companyâs philosophy then go right ahead! Iâm only here to share some of my knowledge so you can go kick some ass in the upcoming campaign mode 
Rk38
Engine
3.0L V6 DOHC-4 VVL
NA MPFI
231hp - 144.5 PI - 74.9 reliability - 23% efficiency
$1374 mat cost - 56.3 PU - 137.83 eng time
In this challenge, the engine design is crucial, and the Huadai approach is⌠interesting, to say the least. The 3.0L V6 is one of the more powerful engines here, but Huadai have made several design choices that conflict with each other, limiting the engineâs potential.
With 3.0L of displacement, a 42/80 cam profile, and long tubular exhaust, this sets itself up to be a high-revving performance engine. Indeed, the torque rises and rises until it hits its peak at 5800RPM - only to be cut off at 6000RPM. Why? Low friction cast pistons (along with cast crank and conrods) force a terribly low redline. Without the redline, peak power would be 265hp at 8000RPM, a full 2000RPM past the redline. The choice of low friction pistons is a strange one, as this engine isnât very efficient, especially with its 14:1 air-fuel ratio, lack of DI, and poor low-end performance. I-beam steel conrods and forged pistons would allow revving up to 7500RPM with good reliability, and switching to 15:1 AFR would result in better efficiency.
Another problem is the very low ignition timing at just 25. Ignition timing and compression ratio have to be adjusted carefully, but in general ignition timing should be at least 50, and in modern DI engines, as high as 90+. Lowering compression ratio and increasing ignition timing results in better performance and efficiency.
Some more minor notes⌠performance intake is a good choice for sports cars, but I avoid it for general purpose engines. The extra noise hurts comfort a lot and the extra service cost doesnât help either. Same goes for long tubular headers, very noisy and also requires a lot of production units. High-flow cats are very expensive and provide little benefit. In fact, a well-tuned engine can be just as good with a regular cat as a high-flow one.
The original engine
My version of the engine. Better performance, better efficiency, quieter, and cheaper.
Cars
Huadai Belholt SX AWD (Muscle 131.8)
This is a very attractive-looking premium sedan, looking both aggressive and refined. That describes its character as well, with a good blend of drivability, sportiness, and comfort. The single-clutch sequential transmission is a good choice for this purpose, but the gears are too widely spaced. The braking is poorly balanced, with solid disc rear brakes that are too powerful and also prone to fade. Also, double wishbones up front would have been a better choice. All in all, not bad, but it seems like it should be better for its high price tag.
Huadai Duskan GX (Family 123.9, Family Utility 117.9, Utility 120.7, Heavy Utility 105.9)
This thing is huge and incredibly badass-looking. I really like the imposing profile, although the sharply raked windshield looks a little strange. Unfortunately, there are quite a few problems which make it miss the mark. First of all, itâs just too expensive. At $21000 itâs well into the premium market and far outside the price range of most utility buyers. Also, for utility markets, a ladder chassis is pretty much a requirement with its +40% boost to utility. Transmissions with more gears also give a nice bonus to utility.
Huadai Pernix GS (Fun 143.3, Light Sport 128.4)
With an engine with this much performance, it seems strange to put it in a FWD hot hatch for the sporty crowd. The power easily overwhelms the grip available, resulting in excessive wheelspin. We finally see zero-fade vented rear brakes, but thereâs far too much braking power in the rear. This car isnât all that light weight either, and I think some downforce would have improved its performance as well.
Huadai Belinta SX (Commuter 119.3, City 114.2)
The Belinta is probably my favorite in the Huadai lineup, with its beautiful flowing lines blending nicely with the front fascia. The six-speed auto is geared nicely and the wheelspin is kept under control despite it being FWD. The braking still needs work, the front brakes need to be bigger and the rear brakes need to be vented. It seems strange to see a fully clad undertray in this car; it gains a paltry 0.3mpg for all that weight and cost.
Thecarlover
Engine
3.2L V6 SOHC-3
NA DI
204hp - 143.3 PI - 78.2 reliability - 23% efficiency
$1789 mat cost - 48.4 PU - 126.31 eng time
With a SOHC design, only 3 valves per cylinder, and no VVL, the Duoâs 3.2L V6 engine seems pretty⌠old-fashioned for a jack-of-all trades engine. Itâs quite interesting to compare this with the Huadai 3.0L V6 - they both have similar performance indexes (despite the Duo engine having less horsepower) and similar efficiencies. The Duo engine has greater material costs (due to DI and just being bigger) but lower production units and engineering time (due to a simpler valvetrain). However, while the Huadai engineâs biggest faults limit its performance, most of the problems with the Duo engine have the opposite effect: they make it more expensive than it needs to be.
The biggest problem with the Duo engine has to be addressed first, however: no VVL. The Duo engine can only run a single 38 cam profile, limiting its performance both at the low and the high end. In the current state of the game, the Huadai engine is going to be far superior, because it can get a +9% drivability modifier (and up to +11.3% with better tuning) while the Duo engine gets a lackluster +2.6%. This may change in the next update, however. With correct tuning, the Huadai engine will also be far more efficient at low speeds.
This engine uses quite a lot of parts that are needlessly expensive. First of all, hypereutectic cast pistons provide only a tiny emissions boost while being far more expensive than regular cast pistons. Emissions are rarely an issue (especially with direct injection) so I almost never use hypereutectic cast pistons.
The engine also uses a dual exhaust, adding a significant amount of cost and weight. As far as I know, thereâs no major benefit to dual exhaust other than reducing noise. While the noise reduction is good (and a step above some of the other engines), there are much cheaper ways to do this.
Like Huadai, Duo likes their high-flow cats, which Iâve already talked about before. Duo uses tubular headers, while I generally prefer short cast for regular cars. Part of this is because I almost always use turbos, but for NA engines, cast headers are quieter and use far less production units.
The original engine
My version. Slightly lower performance, much better efficiency with far less production units and material cost.
Cars
Duo Cross B (Family Utility 121.5, Utility 134.1, Heavy Utility 116.4)
I rather like the looks of the Duo Cross B. The front fascia is edgy and modern and the light gray paint looks great. I have several suggestions for improving drivability and utility. First, leaf springs support a far greater load capacity than trailing arms. Second, the five speed auto is a little lacking, and a 9-speed is better for utility (but this must be weighed against the increased cost). Steel rims are better than alloy for utility as well. Vented disc brakes improve drivability and utility significantly and are well worth the cost. Iâm also not really sure why a semi clad undertray is needed when it barely improves economy (0.16 mpg) and adds cost. The lack of ESC and advanced safety is strange, too.
Duo Trot B (Fun 131.8, Light Sport 146.1, Muscle 129.2)
The Duo Trot B looks BADASS! The headlight and grille design really work well here, it looks like a proper modern muscle car! The Trot also seems to be much better designed for its intended purpose than the Cross. Wheelspin is well managed, no fade in the brakes, steering is good but could use a little less oversteer. The only major suggestion I have is that 4 seats seems a little unnecessary for the intended markets. Overall, a very capable sports car.
Duo Econo B (Family 117.4, Commuter 116.1, City 115.6)
This is a ridiculously futuristic family sedan for 2016! For a car called the Econo, the 30mpg fuel efficiency is pretty pedestrian⌠but the 175mph top speed certainly isnât! Certainly, this car is designed to take advantage of its fantastic aerodynamics⌠but is that what family, commuter, and city buyers are really looking for?
The most important factor for these markets is drivability, and while 53 is a pretty respectable number, it could be a whole lot better. First, thereâs excessive wheelspin, largely a result of too widely-spaced gears and too thin tires. Speaking of which, those are some MASSIVE tires. Smaller tires are cheaper, lighter, and faster to start and stop. You do have to balance this with brake size and practicality (ride height), however. In offroad vehicles, obviously bigger tires are better, but for regular cars I find 650-700mm diameter tires to have the best balance. Also, -4.2% brake fade is really too much for a 2016 car and it hurts drivability a lot. Vented discs are a huge improvement, plus you can remove brake cooling for even better aerodynamics.
Sillyducky
Engine
2.0L I4 MOHV
Turbo DI
134hp - 97.4 PI - 75.4 reliability - 28% efficiency
$1378 mat cost - 26.1 PU - 139.13 eng time
This Fahrzeug 2.0L I4 engine is certainly⌠unique. With only 134hp despite the use of a turbocharger, this engine has a very low specific output and doesnât get particularly good efficiency in the cars. I honestly have zero experience with MOHV, so I could be totally wrong here, but I donât see why you would use it for an everyday car. You canât use VVL with it, which is already a huge negative, and you only get 2 valves per cylinder, so itâs not that efficient. And worse, itâs very expensive, with extremely high material costs and high production costs. As far as I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), the only advantage is that itâs very light, which doesnât really help much for the average buyer.
Like the Huadai engine, this engine also uses low friction cast pistons with an AFR of 13.5:1, making it poorly optimized for efficiency and needlessly expensive. This engine gets pretty unimpressive mileage numbers considering how weak it is.
Once we go look at the drivability modifier, we see why VVL is so crucial - even more so with turbo engines. This engine gets a massive -11% modifier to drivability. The Huadai engine had a +9% modifier, so between these two engines thereâs a 20% difference in the drivability. Thatâs a 20% effect on the most important factor in the game. But again, keep in mind that the next update may change all of these numbers.
The original engine
My version. Much better performance, even lower costs, and it actually gets considerably better real-world fuel economy.
Cars
Fahrzeug C1 (City 109.6)
The C1 is a pretty decent city car, mostly held back by the poor engine. The six speed auto is poorly geared, limiting top speed and also resulting in excessive wheelspin (with only 134hp!). The brakes are well balanced but way too powerful; 6-pot brakes are extremely expensive and totally unnecessary. The engine is undercooled, hurting reliability, and for some reason, ESC is missing on this car and the C3. ESC is practically free drivability so it should always be selected if itâs available. Besides that, the car is fairly well tuned for drivability, and itâs on the right path to being a good city car.
Fahrzeug C1 S (Fun 125, Light Sport 123, Muscle 95.9)
This cute little 3-door can hardly be described as a hot hatch considering the pitiful power output of the engine. Indeed, the C1 S falls flat in the Muscle category and is well below average in the Fun and Light Sport markets. It perhaps could have done better in Light Sport with some serious weight reduction, but the heavy and expensive AWD killed any chances there. This car is compromised for both of those markets, although the practicality of a hatch does help for the Fun market.
Fahrzeug C2
Not really sure why this is here, itâs outclassed by all the other cars in the lineupâŚ
Fahrzeug C3 (Family 117.1, Commuter 110.8, Family Utility 119.6, Utility 125.6, Heavy Utility 98.8)
This is a true jack-of-all-trades SUV, getting the best score of the Fahrzeug lineup in 5 out of the 9 categories. Unfortunately, that also makes it a master of none, as the below-average utility drags down the score in the utility markets, especially heavy utility. It would have been better to optimize a separate car for utility with a ladder chassis and utility-focused design choices.
As it stands, the C3 is littered with compromises: the monocoque chassis, medium tires, and alloy wheels limit utility, while the leaf suspension hinders drivability and comfort.
Koolkei
Engine
2.8L I4 DOHC-4
NA DI
248hp - 174.4 PI - 78.9 reliability - 27% efficiency
$2135 mat cost - 56.1 PU - 222.95 eng time
Unfortunately, Koolkeiâs engine has to be disqualified due to its excessive engineering time (200 was the maximum). This is largely due to the abundant use of quality sliders, especially the +3 in bottom and top end each. This engine is the most expensive one here, with by far the highest material costs and also very high production costs for an I4.
Koolkeiâs approach to this engine design is certainly quite interesting: itâs a large-displacement, highly oversquare I4, normally displacing 3.3L but de-bored and de-stroked here to 2.8L. The reason why the engine is so expensive is simple: itâs a huge block made out of magnesium. In this competition, where only one variant is allowed, using a downsized variant just makes the engine more expensive and heavier than it needs to be.
The rest of the engine is fairly well-tuned: the 29/80 VVL setup is nicely done, the ignition timing and compression ratio are well-balanced, and the 15:1 AFR improves efficiency. I only have some minor squabbles with the exhaust setup. Dual baffled mufflers would be quieter and cheaper than the conflicting reverse flow and straight through mufflers. A larger exhaust would prevent choking the exhaust flow. I also think short cast headers are the best for everyday cars, as I explained above.
The original engine
My retuned version. Same performance, slightly less efficient, much quieter and easier to produce.
Cars
Sla 29 (City 109.3)
This car looks pretty cool, but Iâm really confused as to what its intended market is. The Sla 29 is Koolkeiâs best offering for the City market, but the body is a terrible choice for this. It is way too big, and only offers 2 seats, so its practicality is very poor. Itâs a RWD coupe and has a powerful engine, which makes it seem like a sports car, but it has strut and trailing arm suspension, an automatic transmission, and hard tires. With all these conflicting design choices, itâs no wonder it gets the poorest City score of all the companies, and doesnât do very well in any other markets.
Falsi (Utility 123.3, Heavy Utility 113.4)
Koolkei certainly did a good job optimizing this truck for utility, with good chassis, drivetrain, and suspension choices. Unfortunately, this truck suffers from one major issue: itâs just too expensive for the utility and heavy utility markets. With a huge body, partial aluminum panels, and the overly expensive engine, the Falsi goes way over budget, and gets stuck with a terrible interior and lackluster safety. Not to mention that a 9-speed auto would have improved utility greatly.
Side note: the truck variant of this body is currently glitched, as the cargo space subtracts from passenger space when it shouldnât. Get on it @thecarlover!
Liza (Fun 125.6, Light Sport 162.3, Muscle 115.1)
Unfortunately, the Liza breaks the rules a second time, using a Glued Aluminum chassis when no limited production parts are allowed. This car is certainly the most well-focused in Koolkeiâs lineup, with its light weight and snappy engine doing well in Light Sport. The lack of prestige holds it back in Muscle, and in the Fun category, the expensive engine and chassis makes it overpriced, and the lack of practicality doesnât help either. In terms of fine tuning, there isnât anything majorly wrong with it, but small adjustments to reduce wheelspin and brake fade would have improved drivability and sportiness.
Kuda (Family 124, Commuter 119, Family Utility 114.2)
The Kuda has pretty much the same problem as the Falsi: the body is too big, and the whole thing is just too expensive. The interior is terrible and the car has below average comfort despite its size. Also, RWD is nice and all, but itâs not something that family buyers are really looking for. Iâm actually surprised that it can get the drivability it does considering how big, heavy, and rear-biased it is. The six speed auto has ridiculously tall gearing, with two widely spaced overdrive gears.
Lysambrias
Engine
2.5L V6 DOHC-4
NA MPFI
184hp - 124.3 PI - 73.9 reliability - 25.5% efficiency
$1225.38 mat cost - 70.4 PU - 197.09 eng time
Funnily enough, the winning engine for the SELC stage 1 has perhaps the most potential for improvement. Many of the suggestions Iâve made for other engines also apply here. No VVL and a cam profile of 50 result in an underwhelming drivability modifier of +4.4%. Low friction cast pistons limit the redline. The performance intake and tubular exhaust are noisy. The dual exhaust is unnecessary and expensive. Also a single reverse flow muffler is a poor choice; dual baffles are much cheaper and quieter.
Another thing youâll want to be careful with is the quality sliders. This engine has by far the most production units of any engine here, which will really hurt you in the campaign. The +4 on fuel system doesnât actually give much benefit; a +1 or +2 would have done fine. Going +4 on top end as well adds over 15 PU. And finally, I generally try to avoid using aluminum for the block and heads; cast iron is cheaper and gets better performance, while AlSi is lighter and effectively cheaper due to lower production cost.
The original engine
My version. Slightly less performance, slightly better efficiency, but A LOT quieter and cheaper.
Cars
Sandstone RH (Utility 149.5, Heavy Utility 142.3)
Despite my criticisms of the engine, thereâs no denying that the G+C cars are well designed for their intended purposes, taking first place in competitiveness by quite a wide margin. A large part of this success is due to the smart body selection. Each car is optimized for its intended purpose, minimizing the compromises that held other companies back.
The Sandstone is a good example of this, using a compact truck built on a ladder chassis, with strut and solid axle coil suspension. This is a utility vehicle and it doesnât need to be anything more. However, using plain steel for the chassis is outdated in 2016; AHS steel is superior in almost every way and is well worth the cost. Also, leaf suspension is generally better for utility with its greater load capacity.
The RH trim of the Sandstone seems to be purely designed for offroad use. While offroad capability is valued by the Utility and Heavy Utility markets, take care that youâre not sacrificing utility or adding unnecessary cost. Thereâs excessive wheelspin, result of the 4x4 drivetrain and widely spaced gears. Using AWD would greatly reduce wheelspin, improving both drivability and utility.
Ruby 5 (Family 135.4, Commuter 133.1, City 125.1, Family Utility 128.6)
The Ruby 5 wins the mainstream markets with its excellent combination of drivability, practicality, and safety. The well-tuned AWD system provides plenty of grip and is key to the class-leading 61.2 drivability. Medium tires, staggered for an understeering characteristic, also help in this regard. However, it is somewhat let down by the fade-prone solid disc brakes.
While the Ruby 5 certainly achieves excellent drivability, I feel that it does this at a quite significant cost. FWD would be a lot cheaper, lighter, and more efficient, and probably wouldnât sacrifice too much drivability. Staggered tires are also quite a bit more expensive than a conventional setup. High drivability can be achieved with less expensive means, such as a well-tuned brake and suspension setup. This would free up money for a nicer interior (and also AHS steel chassis, but you should be using that anyway).
Topaz S (Fun 142.5, Light Sport 168.5, Muscle 133.9)
The Topaz S is probably the best-designed car in G+Câs already solid lineup. Using an AHS steel monocoque with aluminum panels, it manages to be relatively light for its size. The vented disc brakes are well-balanced and fade-free. The small wheels are lightweight and allow for a low ride height. The handling of the Topaz is very good, and thatâs why it wins the performance markets.
That being said, there is still room for improvement. For one, the transverse AWD setup is a little strange for a sports car. A traditional RWD would add sportiness and lower weight significantly, while sacrificing some drivability. Also, a wing and some additional downforce would go a long way to improving handling and sportiness. Finally, despite its weight, advanced safety is still a good choice even for the Light Sport market.
Conclusion
Congrats to @lysambrias for winning stage 1 of the Single Engine Lineup Challenge! Car design, both in Automation and in real life, is all about making tradeoffs. Lysambrias succeeded by minimizing the tradeoffs he needed to make, and allowing each car to focus on the stats that matter most. The family car had the best drivability by far, and the utility vehicle had the best utility. Itâs as simple as that. The sports car had one of the highest sportiness scores and combined it with excellent drivability as well as good comfort and prestige. Even though his engine wasnât the best, Lysambriasâs chassis and trim design was enough to pull him to victory.
4 Likes
It seems I forgot to PM you my three cars, but just as well - I wouldnât have won anyway. Still, just knowing that other users made some poor engine and/or car design choices makes me feel somewhat relieved. The low capacity and output (1.6 litres and a little over 160 bhp) would have held me back in the sporty categories, thoughâŚ
Based on your reviews, I have some advice for anyone wishing to build an all-purpose engine. A standard intake and short cast headers (especially on NA engines) will cut costs and noise, as well as improving comfort - performance intakes and (long) tubular exhausts belong on performance cars, where their extra noise is not as much of a concern. Dual exhausts on V-type engines are best reserved for high-end cars where a high level of airflow is required, as are high-flow catalytic converters on an affordable engine, making both of them rather superfluous, and a pair of baffled mufflers are best when you want to reduce noise on a budget (straight-through ones are too loud, and although a dual reverse-flow muffler is the quietest setup, it is also the costliest. The block and/or heads are best made of cast iron or aluminum/silicon; for this application, plain aluminum is too costly and time-consuming to engineer, and magnesium is even worse in this regard.
As for the bottom end, cast internals, should you use them for cost or efficiency reasons, arenât very strong, particularly low-friction pistons, so a shorter stroke is a must for any engine which uses them, simply because you wonât end up with a truncated rev range after using such cheap parts (although in the present day, hypereutectic cast pistons donât reduce emissions enough to offset their higher cost). Those low-friction cast pistons do provide an economy boost, though. Speaking of which, direct injection, VVL, VVT (with a mild cam profile), a lean air/fuel ratio, and aggressive ignition timing will be extremely helpful in making the most of every last drop of fuel, although the last two will force you to decrease the compression ratio (which also reduces emissions). However, DOHC engines get the most benefit from these, and this valvetrain is basically a must when efficiency is the top priority- SOHC is cheaper but not as efficient, while MOHV is practically useless due to its incompatibility with VVL and enormous material and production costs, although I still prefer to use such setups in crossplane V8s for performance applications (where efficiency is less important) to save weight and improve reliability. In fact, I was gutted when @Sillyworld submitted a car with an overhead-valve V12 for CSR15 - the lack of power and efficiency prevented him from reaching the semi-final stage of that round, and definitely outweighed the other aspects of his entry.
In general, though, use quality sliders with caution - the exponential increase in cost and engineering time will eventually make your engine unaffordable if you go too far. However, I have considerable experience in designing jack-of-all-stats engines, and have remembered (and successfully applied) all of this knowledge since well before your contest began.
1 Like
-
of course iâd miss something (2 things). everything i made was done at 2 midnights⌠NO RAGRETS
-
my engine wasnât targeted as a entry-level class cheap option. thatâs why all the quality sliders and any other decisions i made on it. and i slightly held back the pipe on purpose. gets a bit more efficiency for slightly less power, but it has enough power anyway. that engine family managed to almost get me 2 competition wins :P. itâs also approved by @strop. itâs also a bit of a lore, using an already available engine that i used before. i literally didnât re-tune the engine, just picked it, and move on.
-
the really bad interiors was also curious. the competitiveness score jumps up with worse interiors, and thereâs nothing much that i could do about it
and although you said itâs a personal preference. thereâs quite a bit of advice that i donât completely agree on
-
performance intakes : performance intakes=higher running cost? i beg to differ. i actually always felt like performance intakes are OP actually. on some engines that i made, performance intakes offers up to $10 lower running cost. with a slight hit on comfort, but better fuel economy and higher power. itâs almost a no brainer
-
exhaust headers : short cast for everything? i think for some higher power engine, better header cost justifies the extra power it provides. not to mention if the header is holding back the engine. thatâs just lost potential efficiency. like what you did with mine.
-
choice of mufflers : baffled are usually only used early on the timeline. later on, itâs just a method to cheaply do a muffler. except if youâre holding the exhaust system on purpose. i never used baffled muffler for their cost, usually if i do it, itâs because of other things. itâs just have bad airflow, so more often than not, itâs just a bad idea to use baffled later on the timeline. like, post 1995-ish
Well, I was expected a number of these issues since I had created this designs quite a few weeks back and Iâve learnt quite a bit more about properly setting up a car since then.
But nonetheless, great reviews @phale itâs very helpful to see the direct comparisons between the original and improved versions of the engines. I really appreciate the in-depth analysis and advice which can hopefully filter back into further refine my designs.
Oh and congratulations to @lysambrias for winning stage one !
So now I wonder what plans lay ahead for stage two?