安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
A larger engine can get better efficiency % but the car's MPG will be lower because of the weight.
It's possible to get more MPG but as real cars that get high market scores go it's the best I know.
considering it has 2.2L of displacement and the bore is uhhhhhhh 90 mm, I think 15 mpg is great for 300 hp, right?
right?
79.7 mpg
512 production units
1230 engineering time
that is leaving all the quality settings at 0
98.5hp
115.5 mpg
2810 production units
1520 engineering time
with all quality settings set for max economy
Right now I feel my absolute best compromise is my FWD '95-00 Margo Motors Campo CS (take your pick between the wagon, or 2 or 4 door sedan). Materials cost for the car is $4400. It's a low pressure 1.4L Turbo 4-cylinder motor with 115hp @ 6,400RPM and 115ft-lbs at 2,900 RPM matched to a 5-speed manual. Eng time for the motor is a touch high at 140 (no modifiers).
Closest real world car to it would be the fifth generation Civic, specifically a fully decked out EX trim Civic (not the base or lower trims - never bothered trying to trim down the budget car further). And no surprise as that's where I got the inspiration from for my budget family class car. It weighs in at 2500lbs, and achieves 36mpg while still putting out performance numbers that rival a Civic SI from that era (but only just). I know I can jiggle around all sorts of stuff to get higher economy and better VE, but it's all about compromises and this I feel is one of my more outstanding cars I've come up with to date in terms of performance & fuel economy compromises, esp for that time period.
Of course, this isn't my favourite trim - that would be my 2800lbs AWD Rally Edition with the 210hp V6... But that's considerably more expensive (like, just over double) and a totally different beast of car despite it's humble budget family class roots. It's like the Escort RS Cosworth vs the regular bland Ford Escort for real world comparison car (same name, same generation, but 100% different car).
I also really like the unrestricted Rally car prototype, but common 300hp in such a small car always makes for a delightfully "swift" car (I live in a hilly area, and this non-production model has "just" enough power to get up them). ;-)
The 300hp car does get 20mpg (it's really stripped down), and the well equipped detuned production car gets 23. So both these rank as one of my better power to miles per gallon cars figures given the low grade 90's conventional technology.
I saw someone earlier tweaking turbo to try and improve economy. You know, one can make very highly efficient engine, but at the end of the day weight, gearing, aerodynamics, etc all come into play for the actual MPG you get. Just adding any form of forced induction to a motor will always worsen fuel economy unless other steps are taken (your adding the weight of the entire forced induction system and simultaneously consuming more air and fuel). So one strategy would be to also downsize the motor, then use the forced induction to get the same amount of power as a larger NA motor it'll replace. The resulting smaller motor should get better MPG then the original larger motor (esp. off boost), and if it's small enough should cut back on weight. But the smaller forced induction motor will still consume more fuel then the same smaller motor with out the turbo. Hence I look at the "Fuel Economy" preset in the turbo and roll my eye's - turbo's (and all other forms of forced induction) may improve efficiency, but no forced induction will EVER improve fuel economy unless other steps are taken to realise better MPG. :-)
2111cc 4 cylinder 16v Boxer Twin Turbo
Efficiency 37.1%
Reliability 100.2
Weight 139kg
Service cost 325.8
97.9 RON
165hp @ 6100
258Nm @ 3000
Material Cost 7544
Production units 668.7
Emission 17.3
Noise 26.4
I have a more realisticly priced 5.2 V10 making 401hp at 31% efficency, 88 production units and matirial cost of 2926
HP: 302.9
NM:404
Fiability : 70.7
Production unit : 588.3
Engineer time 1635.5
Cost: 9312
All quality slide set to 15
MPG: 43.6% efficiency
Production Units: 53.1
Material Cost: 1844.4
Eng Requirement: 144.9
All quality sliders set to zero
Not long started out on Automation, but focussing on nothing but efficiency I have made a concept vehicle that claims 43+% efficiency & 140mpg. It was 141 but it was undriveable, so a few minimal tweaks were necessary. It can also top out at 233km/h. I don't have access to all the other details required at this time, but these can be to follow later if required.
Regards
UT
all of the quality sliders are at +15.
$7300.1 material costs
527.6 production units
1571.3 engineering time
Engine specs:
1988 159ci i4 dohc turbo
28.3% efficiency
1147 material cost, 31 production units, 110.8 engineering time.
198.9 ft lbs @2200 rpm and 122.9 hp @4900
Regular gas, cat converter, no mufflers.
Vehicle specs:
3632 material costs. 84.5 production units. 82.3 engineering time.
51.2 mpg, 2082 pounds, 5 speed manual, 0-60 of 7.9 seconds, top speed 155.
18000 cost.
4dr sedan and surprisingly doesn't look too much like a cuckbox, still a cuckbox though.
Could use some modified suspension, smaller brakes (according to the warnings? I think I was trying in a challenge trying to get below a certain break distance). Power steering would help it sell, but would bring mpg down near 45-46.