Yeah, I think they might be a tad too OP.
These two cars are meant for the City Premium demographic. First one has a 2L V12, second one has a high-tech 1.3L I4.
The stats aren’t massively different, except for prestige and production units. The end result is that both cars have around 104 competitiveness in the city premium demographic.
Regarding the prestige between the V12 and the I4, I think it’s fairly appropriate. You’ve got a higher displacement, and I4’s have the lowest prestige value of all the engines. V12’s also have the disadvantage of being the most mechanically complex engine we currently have.
I’m not saying it’s perfectly balanced, but those are the two extremes we have.
…I just got 318.8 Desirability on Premium Budget in 1955. V12s are bonkers good.
Seems like maybe they’re too cheap to make.
yeah, they’re feeling a little OP to me, because i managed to get one that made a family sedan into a sports car with not too much of a hit to fuel efficiency
Yeah, I gave some V12’s a shakedown in a few cars and… yeah, they’re way more powerful than I expected.
[quote=“TrackpadUser”]Yeah, I think they might be a tad too OP.
These two cars are meant for the** City Premium **demographic. First one has a 2L V12, second one has a high-tech 1.3L I4.
The stats aren’t massively different, except for prestige and production units. The end result is that both cars have around 104 competitiveness in the city premium demographic.[/quote]
I didn’t quote the image just to keep things tidy,
but single digit mileage in a city car? I can’t believe the competitiveness is so high…
In L/100km
I am an idiot American, my apologies. 
I don’t expect them to be overpowered: yes, they give you more prestige, but development time will be about twice as long compared to reasonable I4s. That means they will be difficult to make viable in categories that have a lot of competition going on, like the city segments.
Okay, that makes sense. Not too difficult if you’re aiming for things like Super, Hyper, or Luxury Superior (very few competitors compared with the others), but you’re not going to stuff a tiny V12 in your city car and expect it to compete against I3’s, I4’s, and V6’s. Fairly logical, actually.
So a quick test of a rebuild of the first car I published under my company thread, Nightfury, returns a 6:39 on Green Hell. And the V12 hasn’t quite been tuned fully yet.
It seems that all is going to be well with the world once more.
Someone needs to build a tank engine
I’ve got a sellable car that’ll lap Green Hell in 7:07.78, and one that’s strictly race-grade that’ll do it in 6:47.46, so I’m happy with the performance of naturally-aspirated V12 engines. I’m willing to acknowledge that I’m not able to beat Strop at his own game, but I’m pleased with my crazy front-engined car.
As for something I’m having fun with…
That menacing sedan is packed with luxury goodies and a massive engine. Just something I kinda wanted to do for quite a while, to stuff a V12 into a car from the 50’s and see how prestigious I could get it to be due to cylinder count and displacement. It doesn’t rev really high, nor make a ton of power (6.0 compression, 0 cam profile to keep from lighting up the tires too badly), but it’s a surprisingly inexpensive luxury boat.
Haven’t tried refining my skill with the V12 at making large amounts of power, but I’m having fun. Can’t wait until I can toss turbos at the problem, though, and see what levels of stupid I can get up to. I’m not all that great at making high-performance naturally-aspirated engines.
For me the 1940 Lincoln-Zephyr V12 will be the first once I can get the game to function again.
4.8L V12
110hp @ 3900rpm
287nm @ 1800rpm
This is my first post here. I’ve been a member for almost exactly one year.
[quote=“CTJacob”]For me the 1940 Lincoln-Zephyr V12 will be the first once I can get the game to function again.
4.8L V12
110hp @ 3900rpm
287nm @ 1800rpm
This is my first post here. I’ve been a member for almost exactly one year.[/quote]
Too bad the Lincoln-Zephyr was a sidevalve engine. You can only mimic the numbers, not the exact engine.
[quote=“RobtheFiend”]
[quote=“CTJacob”]For me the 1940 Lincoln-Zephyr V12 will be the first once I can get the game to function again.
4.8L V12
110hp @ 3900rpm
287nm @ 1800rpm
This is my first post here. I’ve been a member for almost exactly one year.[/quote]
Too bad the Lincoln-Zephyr was a sidevalve engine. You can only mimic the numbers, not the exact engine.[/quote]
Yeah. Same with the Ford Flathead V8. They still come within about 5hp of the OHV engines.
so far… who had built the most efficient V12?
Might have a runner-up for efficient V12. The transmission, undoubtedly, will be holding it back. That being said, I couldn’t help but be the first person to commit an automotive crime by coupling a V12 to a nine-speed slushbox.
24.5 US MPG, in a car that is designed to be comfortable, easy to drive, but still kinda fun if you want to let it unwind a little.
And yep, that’s a 9-speed slush-o-matic hooked to a nice 6 liter V12. Shame we don’t have CVT’s yet, or I’d have used one of those instead. Maybe some other time.
Oh, and that’s using my typical “Regular Unleaded Only” build. And VVL, which I rarely ever use, because two cam profiles becomes a pain sometimes. With an Eco tune (15:1 air:fuel ratio, low cam profile, highest compression possible with such low fuel mix and cam) just to try to make it a little less thirsty.
Used Partario’s new executive car body, but built in 2015 because I felt that was a good starting platform for a test of both the new body and of course, the never-before-used 9 speed automatic. (at least, I’ve never typically used such crazy automatic gearboxes. Typically, the most I use them for is up to about 4 or 5 speeds, and only in cheap, tiny cars that need lots of drivability.)
The biggest v12 as possible and powerful, f1 90s engine (600hp for a 3.5l engine, not bad and so close to the real f1 power), 8.0l v12 for the Excelsior, attempting to put a >5l v12 in a '00 large supercar (I can’t fit large engine in the mid-engined bodies).
