Hello!
I’m rather new to the forums - but not the game - and I finally got around to sharing my designs!
~A Brief History of West Automotive~
West Automotive was founded in 2015 with one goal: to make the most powerful, most rugged and most utilitaritan vehicles out there. As such, West Automotive’s debut vehicle was the Mule Prototype; An extremely rugged, all terrain pickup truck designed to take on the worst of environments.
In 2016, a refined version of the original prototype - Named the Ares - was nearly ready for production.
The Ares is available with two engines:
The 2.5L turbocharged inline-four (172hp@4000 rpm, 220ft/lbs@3000 rpm).
The 4.5L turbocharged inline-six (303hp@4000 rpm 404ft/lbs@3500 rpm)
Each are extremely efficient and reliable, delivering a maximum of 24 and 22mpg respectively (4x4 base models tested with manual transmission and single cab)
A seven speed transmission is offered as both a manual and an automatic.
Critical comments are welcome, especially those regarding the drivetrain.
I have a few questions for you all, actually.
How should I reduce turbo-lag (without reducing power, efficiency or reliability)?
Should I make 4x2 models?
Answers to these questions are greatly appreciated, and will likely influence the production models.
Very nice first car for your company. I’m no expert on pick up trucks but the headlight design is sweet.
As for reducing turbo lag, the simplest way is to reduce the size of the turbo. On the engine diagram, both the compressor and turbine should be red if you want an efficient, low lag turbo.
And while I can’t remember exactly, I think having a smaller compressor than turbine is also good for efficiency (this may be the other way around).
However, this will reduce power, can’t do much about that. You could add VVT/L and have a mess around with that, you should be able to get a setup where you can maintain good amounts of torque in the upper rev range with a small, low lag turbo.
Yes, very good setup. Regarding the turbo lag, I don’t have the full version of the game so I haven’t messed around with it and don’t have much know-how on that subject. Try the included tutorials. Deus has most of it down, I believe. The seven-speed transmission is a good choice, and I’m guessing you have picked the correct type of differential.
Here is an example of a highly efficient small-capacity turbo engine with minimal lag, incorporating both variable valve timing and lift. It still makes a decent amount of power for its small size, despite having a small turbocharger.
In short, this is what you should be aiming for if efficiency is what you want. Note that no quality sliders were used in the creation of this engine - I actually built this for the Single Engine Lineup Challenge, hosted by @phale.
That is a remarkable engine indeed But OP asked how to work around Turbolag…
Keep in mind that we currently have 80s turbo tech available (a forced induction revamp is coming… Eventually) so it’s pretty difficult to achieve a modern torque curve and total spool at 1,500 rpm.
There is 2 ways to work around this. In real life, a lower A/R helps with it (most Garret turbos comes in 0.64 or 082) then you need to set a larger turbine and a smaller compressor. But in automation, you get even better results with the other way around, high A/R ratio (1.40) and inverse turbine and compressor sizes.
Regularly, what I do is I set the A/R and the boost (the higher the boost the higher the spool) and then reduce the compressor until it stops increasing power (or, if it decreases immediately, I increase size until it stops increasing power) and then I do the same for the turbine.
I’ll be using this tune, as reliability and power went up, turbo spool went down 100 rpm, and torque is now much more available earlier in the powerband, Thanks!
Power and torque went up, but turbo spooled at the same rpm, no matter what I tried, I couldn’t get it to spool at less than 2100 rpm
But since efficiency went up, and weight went down, I’ll be using this tune anyway, thanks, guys!
The other way around
I had already been doing this, but what sillyworld suggested is that I play around with A/R ratio a bit more, and make the turbine MUCH smaller.
I use VVT on most of my engines, but since I use DOHC 5v, I cannot use VVL.
On the i4, I am using cast crank and conrod, low friction cast pistons.
On this engine, using forged parts changes nothing, as I am well within tolerances.
On the other hand, I am using forged H beam conrods in the I6, as cast conrods start to fail at 400ft/lbs of torque and heavy duty cast did not like revving to 4000 rpm. The crank and pistons are still cast and low friction cast respectively, as I am trying to keep production units and costs as low as possible.
The philosophy behind these engines was to make them as cheap as possible to produce and maintan, whilst not compromising performance, reliability, or fuel economy.
I think you have done a very good job. One thing I would like to point out is that DOHC may not necessarily be worth it, despite their performance as they are quite expensive. Try playing around.
The thing is, the reliability rating only cares about what the parts are doing at redline. The parts could be at the absolute limit of the torque they can endure in the much more often used operating range between 1500-3200rpm, if they’re fine at an rpm long after peak torque the reliability rating will remain the same, cast or forged.
Seems healthy at first, but at peak torque (which is in a wide and extensively used operating range) the conrods are showing signs of strain that SHOULD limit the life expectancy of these parts:
The same engine with forged parts does not encounter that strain but has the same reliability rating as the one with a cast rotating assembly because neither rotating assembly is strained at the 5000rpm redine.
that’s pretty much the goal of every engine ever made.
sadly, to achieve some of those, you have to give up some others.
on the engine. having peak power on the redline is a no-no. this just means you’re losing extra potential power
but this end up being not about the turbo, but the bore and stroke of your engine. you’re using a highly undersquared engine (stroke>bore). which means it doesn’t like revving high. but in 2016, you should be able to rev to at least 5500 RPM on that engine actually, but by the setting, it looks like it’s may be making peak power at 6-7000 RPM. high stroke engine likes low profile cams. which means low peak power but high efficiency.
so
as-is : not getting the most of your engine
rev it higher + better bottom end parts : extracting more but with added cost
redesign the engine to be not so undersquared : also extract more, without much more cost, but added weight, and that means lower overall economy. (bore>stroke= more weight/capacity)
also, could you just put the car export on the post, maybe some of us could take a look
@awildgermanappears but that’s just a quirk with game design rather than just the engine itself isn’t it?
Not at all, this is a truck after all. A Truck used for work purposes will inevitably encounter situations that’ll require the engine to work under full load over extended periods of time (towing, carrying 1000lbs in the bed plus four people). An engine that can deal with these strains without putting unnecessary stress on itself will last a lot longer, and that is a critical concern for any commercial operator.
Since this is more of a heavy utility vehicle than anything else, the last thing - irl - people would want is an engine which has to rev to 5000 rpm to produce peak power. the best engine for hauling, towing, or offroad would be the one with the most power available to it at the cruising RPM, as this greatly improves efficiency. This is why diesels are generally considered superior for these tasks, as they produce lots of low end power. Because of this, they suffer at the top end, but nobody really cares, as the high speed ones tend to redline at around 3000 rpm.
This is, in part, due to the very long strokes and heavy components necessary to withstand the extra stress of burning diesel fuel.
This begs the question: If I want more low end power, why should I use an engine that revs to 5000+ rpm that has the same displacement, power output (albeit, at a higher rpm), lowers overall fuel efficiency and is heavier than another engine?
As such, my goal is to increase engine output by 20-50hp at or below it’s current redline.
You said it yourself; “…redesign the engine to be not so undersquared : also extract more, without much more cost, but added weight, and that means lower overall economy. (bore>stroke= more weight/capacity)”
The truck already gets pretty miserable economy: 24mpg, MAX, so any change that I could make to reduce this economy would be a step backwards.
And even if this WOULD help, some real life utility engines tend to redline at or below their max power.
Two examples of this are the ford v10 triton and the cummins used in the super duty (650/750)
Plus, the AI shifts at Max Power, OR redline, whichever comes first. So even if I had the redline at 5000+ RPM, the AI would never go to that rev range, if it has reached max power at 4000 RPM (Except for the last ratio)
Also, Awildgermanappears’ engine also suffers from the one of the same issues as mine, even though his engine has a perfectly square bore and stoke and a much higher redline than mine. This leads me to the conclusion that this is simply a symptom of very quick spooling turbos.
It’s one thing to have an engine that suffers constant, but not immediately critical stress, and another to have an engine that can literally explode itself. In regular driving, a car’s body distorts over time, but if you jump it and land wrong the chassis will be completely bent out of shape in a matter of seconds.
i get what you mean. by realistic standards, it should have lower reliability because at a particular spot in the rev range, it’s more burdened then when it’s on the redline, yet the game doesn’t account for that, and as you said, only counts the reliability rating at redline.
right?
that’s why i said, the reliability rating is because of game design that effects the algorithm that effect how reliability are calculated.
@BigBlackNerd look closer. it’s not making power on the redline. after peak power. it happens to be that the power line, is the same as the torque line. and that engine revs up to 5k rpm even for a diesel that big.
and then there’s the torque curve. the peak torque is closer to the middle of the rev range than it is to the redline. which yours is. maybe because turbo, but then again, even turbo can be tuned like that.
24mpg is not that bad for a truck, it’s rather average. so. car export, or no?
Export is in the original post, and has been for hours.
If you can, download the engine, then play with it to get it tuned to peak BELOW 4000rpm, pretty please
And while you’re at it, increase the redline to see what I’m talking about. The engine will break down due to high RPMs, but even my square engines have don’t like to dropoff power when they have very fast spooling turbos.
I know 24 isn’t terrible, but I wanted 27
Also, that engine that revs to 5k rpm is a gas. ALL of ford’s tritons are gassers.
The diesel is the cummins, which revs to 2.6k rpm.
I’m still wondering why my engine needs to rev that high?
But OP asked how to work around Turbolag…
