automationgame.com

KMC (Kunsaï Motors Company) presents :

A small "economic" 1L


The Turbo version of the 1L


A powerfull 1.2L for small cars


And a preview of the R/T (Race Technology) lineup, with the 4L V8 at 559 Hp


To be continued with 1.2 Turbo, 1.6L and 2.0L Turbo and non turbo version. More powerfull two 6L motors, one 2.5L and a 3L. And at the top three V8, the 4L, 5.5L and 6.2L. After will come the R/T Line up and the R/T RACE.

Enjoy !

The 1L engines are small, but not economical. 15.69% economy is bad. I rebuilt the 1999 BMW M5 engine, a 4.9L V8 with 400hp, and it was more economical than that! you should try running the engine less rich, use lower cam profile and use higher compression and earlier ignition timings. Hope this helps

Hum well, we will say this not an economic motor ... But i will test your advice what's a good economic score ?

Thx

Try and aim for 25%. This is where they are considered very good. Also you need to work on reducing the time of production as nearly 55 hours is far to many for a mass production naturally aspirated small engine. Get it below 40 hours. As for the V8, that definitely needs reducing. Yes it will take more time to make a good V8 but 100 is as high as you'll want it to go. The engines are also having their power capped greatly by the rev limit. You may want to consider raising it. 95 RON is the normal fuel in Europe so your engines scores must be below it.

Ok, thanks.

The V8 is a custom line, like AMG or BMW MotorSport.
My engine are design for 98Ron fuel.

I soon post the "civilian" 4L V8 and a 1.6L...

See you

You guys do know the reason why economy goes up with larger engines is because of its ability to convert more of the fuel into useful power ? A 1.0 liter with 15% economy will still 100% sure out last a 30-40% economy " large " engine ... just cause the 1.0 liters is MUCH smaller than a 4... you have to imagine every suck it is taking in about 10-25% of a 4 liters displacement as fuel, where a 1 liter is taking the same.. but in a much lesser extent

KMC Presents the all new 1.6L



What do you think ?

Not bad, I'm not sure the kind of car this engine would go into would necessitate tubular exhaust though. Maybe I am just off base.

Well, it could go to some uber-light sport compact car. It does not utilize the whatever fuel it has though (RON rating should be very close to the fuel RON, like 94.5-95.0 for 95 fuel). And it's not powerful enough to justify the high fuel consumption.

Looks like he has muffler bypass valves which are probably completely unnecessary.

If I may introduce my own attempt?



6 less horsepower and about 20Nm less torque, but more efficient and costs less. I am wonder how his responsiveness score is so high though.

It's Direct Injection that boosts responsiveness greatly.

haha, i must boost my engine it design for 98RON fuel...
According to you the tubular exaust is not necessary ?

thx for advise

Direct fuel injection.

Hi ! I present to you the all new 1.6L engines we found 3 models

The ECO version, with great economy :



The standard version :



And the turbo version :



What do you think about that ?

Here is the 4.0L V8 engines :

The "Classic" :

http://imageshack.com/a/img809/1755/znr8.jpg

The R/T (Race Technology) Version :

http://imageshack.com/a/img96/638/gihz.jpg

The R/T Racing :

http://imageshack.com/a/img34/4549/kktk.jpg

And the ECO :

http://imageshack.com/a/img543/4364/k5lf.jpg