Very low fuel consumption

Hey there! :wink:
I’ve been building some cars yet, playing around with some stuff etc since a while, but there are 2 thing’s, I couldn’t read about in the forums yet.

First thing: All my cars are unbelievable environmental friendly :smiley: Often, my cars do consume about 4L/100km ( or 58mpg ). Even stronger, bigger cars, do barely touch 10L/100km ( 24mpg ).
I do not believe that that is very realistic, somehow. I’ve been driving lots of cars, those were between 20 to 0 Years old, and the consumptions were much more different and higher than the game says.

On the other Hand, the drag coefficient ( In German: CW-Wert, I hope the translation is correct ) is ridiculous high for lots of designs. I do barely get below 0.5 , which is the value of an Citroën 2CV ! And that one is reallllllyy old. I might be getting something wrong here?

But, all in all, this game was a great Idea and well done!

As a side note:
Like the Dev’s said in the FAQ Video, Diesels are likely to arrive after V1.0, I do really hope that they will! The argument, that Diesels are not very important in the USA might be true, but the European gamers might think a little bit different about that :slight_smile: . I’m german, and here we do have a lot of diesel cars. ( And modern Diesels are very cool to drive! Lot’s of torque from 1500RPM to 4500RPM, they really push you back into your seats :slight_smile: . I’m a big diesel fan :wink: )

[quote=“B0necracker”]Hey there! :wink:
On the other Hand, the drag coefficient ( In German: CW-Wert, I hope the translation is correct ) is ridiculous high for lots of designs. I do barely get below 0.5 , which is the value of an Citroën 2CV ! And that one is reallllllyy old. I might be getting something wrong here?
[/quote]

The value you see in Automation, is not drag coefficient, it’s drag coefficient multiplied by the frontal area in square meters (CdA, as opposed to Cd). This allows to tell how areodynamic a body really is, opposed to how areodynamic it is for its size.

Ah cool, thank you! So, I didn’t say anything about that :smiley:

The fuel consumption shown in game will be revised upwards in the next big update by 15% :slight_smile:
Consider that these numbers are what the car makers would give in their leaflets, i.e. not necessarily the realistic “normal driver numbers”. It very much depends on the driver too though.

Thank you for the answer! :slight_smile:
The best game community I’ve seen in a pre-release phase game, keep up the good work :slight_smile:

I know that turbo calculations are high on the list for engine improvements, but this thread has reminded me that when you use a very restrictive turbine with a normally sized compressor you can get dramatically increased fuel economy. It’s most noticeable on undersquare I6 engines where the last few notches of the turbine size give a good few percent increase in efficiency. I have no idea if this is realistic behaviour or not, but it seemed odd enough to be worth pointing out

Do you use an driving cycle like the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) or the EPA FTP 75 to calculate the fuel comsumption? Or is that value an average of fuel consumption at discrete speedvalues, like 50,100,150,200 kph?

We do it as a weighted average of constant speed tests at 30, 50, 70, 90 and 120 km/h, as well as a certain amount of acceleration maneuvers between these speeds.

[quote=“Killrob”]
We do it as a weighted average of constant speed tests at 30, 50, 70, 90 and 120 km/h, as well as a certain amount of acceleration maneuvers between these speeds.[/quote]

Looks like a compressed NEDC/NEFZ :wink:
A sort of ‘test track’ with the speed profile of an time accelerated driving cycle (1220 sec realtime would be way too long) would be a nice option.

[quote=“Sebulba09”]Looks like a compressed NEDC/NEFZ :wink:
A sort of ‘test track’ with the speed profile of an time accelerated driving cycle (1220 sec realtime would be way too long) would be a nice option.[/quote]

What would be the gameplay benefit of that though?

Does anyone believe the real world figures anyway?
Mine is supposed to average 41mpg combined, I struggle to get into the 30s, but then there something wrong with right foot, it must have a very high mass :wink:

Yes, I’ve had the opposite experience when I forced it :stuck_out_tongue: got a shitty manual car supposed to get 7-8L/100km down to 5.2L/100km… it all depends on the driver.

The phrase more smiles less miles comes to mind :slight_smile:

Of course, the consumption’s given by the manufacturer are… hardly… reachable :smiley: My Opel Astra G 1.7DTI (Yes, Diesel :smiley:) can be driven from 4.5L/100km (without any kind of fun or A/C) to 7.8L/100km when doing the topspeed of 170kph and accelerating like an idiot to destroy the front tires ( they were done, it has been the last drive before I had changed them to new tires :smiley: )
Sidenote: Because of the quiet small intercooler it has (75HP and 150Nm), the performance in the winter around -10°C was amazingly better than in the summer at 30°C :smiley: It was well noticeable :slight_smile:

But in Automation, I recently build a 6.0L V8 with a dual carburetor setup in a quite heavy car ( 1500kg ), and it was supposed to do 10.8L/100km. Hard to believe, when taking into account that it has been a 1970’s car :smiley:. Can’t image that happen in real world :smiley:

[quote=“Killrob”]

[quote=“Sebulba09”]Looks like a compressed NEDC/NEFZ :wink:
A sort of ‘test track’ with the speed profile of an time accelerated driving cycle (1220 sec realtime would be way too long) would be a nice option.[/quote]

What would be the gameplay benefit of that though?[/quote]

Assumedly a more accurate calculation of fuel consumption, but then you must balance the benefit against the problems arising from that.

2012 Mitsubishi Lancer I was getting 40MPG highway, rated at 34. So booya.

92 toyota corolla 5 speed sedan rated at 32-33US.mpg highway, I was getting 40 easy and could drop my speed to 50-55mph and with care get it to 45mpg and banging away on the loud pedal at starts and keeping it at or over 90 for a 300 mile roadtrip still returned me a 25mpg average. However my 2000 hyundai tiburon is rated at 28 highway and I’ve only ever gotten it to 35mpg, it mostly hovers around the 30 mark unless I have fun, then it drops.

Thats because you use american rating. Try beating european figures, especially with something brand new with start&stop, optimized for low low on-paper values :smiley:

They’re not really comporable, as US Gallons are something like 15-20% smaller than UK/Euro gallons :wink:

My car gets (advertised) 34mpg (US) highway. This equates to 6.9L/100km, or 40.8mpg (imperial).

I actually get 37mpg (US) highway. This equates to 6.4L/100km, or 44.4mpg (imperial).

I know people with my car (who are hyper-milers) getting 50+ (US) mpg combined (60+ highway only). It’s all in how you drive it. I drive mine like a banshee most of the time (gotta love that exhaust note!).

Just for real world references. :wink: