Improving Fuel Economy

[ubermatt3]

All of the cars I've produced have very poor fuel economy. How can I go about improving it?

[Eric.B]

There are multiple reasons this can be. Are you using the advance or assisted designer? The advance designer generally gives you an idea as to why it's low.

Normally it falls into one of these three:
-Heavy vehicle with little engine.
-Poor gear ratio selection in gearbox.
-Engine design focused too much on performance.


The fuel rating is directly taken from your MPG. With 50MPG being 100 rating points. Also take in mind that fuel economy doesn't matter much in early game years. With the vehicle designs of the time, the aerodynamic drag will be high and great fuel consumption will be difficult to do. As the price of fuel goes up, the fuel economy ratings will become more important, but around that time it'll be much easier to get better fuel economy.

[shiggies713]

Use electric engines, I made one awhile back for a govt truck contract, the final vehicle said it got 32mpg and it was about 1910 iirc. Still was cheap enough to sell to the general public too, though not quite as profitable as my $300 truck

heck if that is too expensive, just make the smallest v6 you can make it will still get at least 12-14mpg even on a 2000lb frame.

[shiggies713]

here is a super cheap 1900 phaeton model that gets 11mpg;

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=900513067

smallest single cylinder engine that could get 1hp, it was like $98, the whole vehicle cost is $328, and that is on nightmare mode, so you can easily do better on lower difficulty.

or you can drop a bigger steam in it and get more than double the mph, but cut the mpg in half for about the same price;
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=900516755

and here is the exact same setup with the steam engine instead with a non sync 3 speed instead of a 2 speed, almost identical otherwise (just 2 points better in power, fuel, performance, and 2 points worse in dependability);
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=900530076
absolutely no difference other then cost, so at least in 1900 the 2 speed ♥♥♥♥♥♥ is absolutely bar none the transmission to use for cost effectivness, not sure how it would stand up to a 4 or 5 speed though.

I would use a medium sized straight 3 though if your not playing on nightmare mode, maybe even two motors, a larger straight 2, and a smaller straight 4 seems to be the best.

v blocks gets better mpg then straights too if that is what you are really prioritizing....

Look at the Nm of a motor (torque), if a vehicle design says not enough torque, try to increase Nm without decreasing mpg. This is almost always achieved by increasing stroke length (though you can counteract the mpg part by increasing fuel economy focus). The bore affects mpg and torque more whereas the stroke affect reliability and horsepower more.

So to have a cheap high torque engine with high reliability (good for trucks) a straight 2 with a higher bore/stroke ratio is better. Basically pack as much cc into that badboy as is reasonable affordable for consumers and will fit on your chassis.

to have a a high mpg engine (good for smaller cars) the bore/stroke ratio must be lower then the previous setting, probably much lower than 1:1, unless both are just all the way as low as possible. But that will have too little hp in most cases.

To mitigate that you can increase stroke at the cost of reliability (and a little bit of mpg, but not as bad as increasing the bore).

Now that I think about it bore might not effect reliability at all, not completely sure.

[xt6wagon]

Small engine in CC, high torque, with a mid to high slider in fuel economy will be good. Not enough torque for the wieght will kill the MPG. Gearbox also needs to be to the MPG side, double so if you are marginal on engine torque. strangely using torque gearing makes lack of torque worse. Once you have enough gears, gearing for top speed can be maxed.

[shiggies713]

I basically just keep improving certain engine types and it will get better, in 1919 my stats are roughly

fuel economy - 55mpg 60Nm (v4 block)
luxury - 33mpg 80Nm (flat 6)
performance - 25mpg 110Nm (straight 2)
cargo - 12 mpg 130Nm (straight 2)
sports -6 mpg 150 Nm (4999cc v2)
experimental - 12 mpg 550 Nm ( 9999cc v12 for racing), I got the cost of this beast down to around $1000 too, over 400horsepower in 1919.

those are just rough estimates as I dont have the numbers in front of me, but basically get a certain type of motor and just keep improving it. Instead of focusing mpg on the economy (it already got really good mpg) i focused on keeping mpg the same while raising torque, so my engine doesn't get the penalty when I use it on a sedan or compact.

some of these by 1919 the cost has gotten ridiculously low, like that fuel economy v4 only cost $84 at the moment, that same exact motor in 1907 cost double that, and had barely half the torque. In 1919 I have multiple cars with a unit cost lower than $300, so low I already have branches and factories in Asia and South America, and have considered africa.

[Prasiatko]

You can save quite a bit of weight by minimizing the values of the interior sliders when designing the car.

[shiggies713]

yea i should mention too above is the actual motor mpg, what the actual car gets depends mostly on the gearbox (and obviously the motor). I have found that a gigantic luxury chassis with a fuel economy motor and gearbox (think mini van or station wagon), the final vehicle will get the exact same fuel mileage as a micro or phaeton on a tiny chassis with the same motor and gearbox.

So basically at least up through the 1930's, the weight honestly doesn't matter for mpg at least. It does for top speed though. Best I have been able to do pre 1930 with a v block motor is about 12mpg (im playing on nightmare mode though), I had some crazy electric model that said it got 32mpg in the 1910's but it was way more expensive.

Another thing I have noticed there is practically no difference at all between a 2 speed and a 3 speed in terms of actual mpg or top speed. The same goes for a 4 speed and a 5, and a 6 and a 7.

Sure, it'll give you a higher rating, but if you go into the protype designer and have a chassis and motor selected, while building a new gearbox and just change the 2 to a 3 or a 4 to a 5... there is literally no difference at all.

So unless you just trying to boost a rating that yields no practical results, or going for a performance gearbox, there is no reason to use the 3, 5, or 7 gearboxes for sure at least though the 1930's. The 2, 4, and 6 are easily more cost effecient in practical terms.

I still had 1 gearbox that was a 5 speed for my performance classes, but my other 3 gearboxes were all 2 or 4 speeds, 2 manuals and 1 automatic (economy, luxury, and cargo)

[Eric.B]

. I have found that a gigantic luxury chassis with a fuel economy motor and gearbox (think mini van or station wagon), the final vehicle will get the exact same fuel mileage as a micro or phaeton on a tiny chassis with the same motor and gearbox.

Depending on the combination you're most likely hitting peak fuel economy for the motor. If you were to make a smaller/weaker motor you'll find the minivan/station wagon unable to have the same fuel economy as the aforementioned micro car or phaeton. (Likewise, since the micro and phaeton require less power, you'll get better fuel mileage out of those types by moving to a smaller engine, while the minivan/wagon needs a bigger engine to get better fuel mileage.)

Another thing I have noticed there is practically no difference at all between a 2 speed and a 3 speed in terms of actual mpg or top speed. The same goes for a 4 speed and a 5, and a 6 and a 7.

There is quite a bit of difference between the number of gears you have. But it all depends on if you have the motor to support it. Having 7 speeds for a 50hp engine would make little noticeable difference because the motor is too weak.

[shiggies713]

well yea, im just referencing pre 1930 models on nightmare mode, so yea I don't think I'm yeilding 50hp in all my motors, heck I think the economy one is like only 10 or 15hp still.

Edit:, yea I just checked, my 1925 engines that I am actually using in vehicles range anywhere from 11hp for the economy motor to 29hp for the 4999cc sports motor.

I have a v12 for the gearcity races that is 415hp but I don't put that in cars to sell.

I try to keep it simple so I only have 4 types of chassis, motor, and gearbox each (economy, luxury, performance, cargo). If the component isn't good enough for that class then I just try to adjust sliders best I can without going crazy. Some of them like touring is a mix and match, performance chassis, economy motor, and could really use any of the gearboxes, could probably even use the performance or luxury motor as well.

This has been good though, with all of these using the same components mostly i have been able to drive the prices down to where I basically had the entire world blanketed by 1927. I even have about 100 factory lines in india and china, even a factory and branch in cairo, basically everywhere. Some of my cars I sell for $699. I got so big I put shipping on world wide for everything and just started crushing the market share game. Up to around 30% world market share in 1929, and not even building all the vehicle types.