FAQ  •  Login

Engine line up, fit for mass production and standardisation

<<

Frank87

Posts: 1

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:28 am

Cars: E34 530iA V8

Post Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:51 am

Engine line up, fit for mass production and standardisation

I started playing the game today. I thought of making a consistent engine line up for R4, V6 and V8 engines. The idea was to make it as standardised as possible. I like the 90' alot when it comes to cars, engines and gearboxes so I came up with the following rules for myself:
- All engines use at least 95 octane
- All engines have 3 way cats
- Realistic horsepower and torque figures (1.6 NA engines don't do 200 HP in street cars)

All engines have a 90mm bore size.
They have a stroke of 70.8 or 78.6.

This leads to a:
1.8 R4, 2.0 R4, 2.7 V6, 3.0 V6, 3.6 V8, 4.0 V8

Those number/cilinder matches don't look strange. Many brands have a 1.6 -> 2.0 family. 2.7 and 3.0 are also V6 displacement sizes that have been used alot. 3.6 is somewhat uncommon for cars. Audi had a 3.6 at the end of the eighties. BMW a 3.5 halfway the 90' and Audi started using a 3.7 in 1994/1995. 4.0 displacement is a common V8 displacement number.

Let's take a look at the engines:
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

If you look at those specs, you see very realistic HP and Torque numbers for the 90's era. Aluminum was already used in 1990 by BMW so this is not unrealistic.

I did make sure that all cars produce plenty of torque around 2500-3000. The R4 and V6 do real well in those rev areas. Reason for that torque range and flat torque curve, is to make it possible to score well on fuel economy in top gear while enjoying the quietness and low friction of an engine by making it run under 3.000 RPM.

The V8s have their optimum above 3.000 RPM but as the curve shows, produce plenty of torque to pull a car while doing 2500 RPM.

The big advantage is the standardisation:
- Within the entire family, 2 bore and stroke sizes are used meaning my factory would only produce 2 types of pistons + rings and 2 types of conrods
- Within each specific family (R4, V6, V8) the exhaust diameter is identical which means my factory would only produce 3 types of exhausts.
- Injection parts, plugs, coils, alternators, waterpumps, A/C compressors, steering pumps and pulleys can all be made identical

The R4 engines would be used in regular family cars and small town cars. They would be mated to a 5 speed manual or 4 speed electronic auto. Both gearboxes would be geared to have the car do 130 km/h at 2.800 RPM. The 4 speed would have a lockup to take away converter slip.

The V6 engines would be used in mid range luxury cars and convertibles. They would be mated to a 6 speed manual or 5 speed electronic auto. Both gearboxes would be geared to have the car do 130 km/h at 2.800 RPM. The 5 speed auto would have an electronic lockup to take away converter slip.

The V8 engines would be used in large business sedans. Only a 5 speed electronic auto would be an option with a lockup.

The 5 speed manual would have a direct drive in its 5th gear (1:1) the 6 speed would be the exact same box but now with an 0.80:1 overdrive ratio in the 6th. The differential of a V6 car can then be shortened leading to an identical cruise speed when compared to an R4 but faster acceleration. So basically, all the gears, synchros and other parts are identical = standardisation.

That 4 speed autobox would have to be able to handle 250Nm to create a nice buffer between the output of the 2.0 R4 and the max. input torque of the gearbox.

That 5 speed autobox would have to be able to handle 440Nm to create a nice buffer between the output of the 4.0 V8 and the max. input torque of the gearbox. The 5 speed would be used on the V6 and V8 cars. This makes it possible to use an identical bellhousing and driveline. The only thing that would be different, is the torque converter as the stall speed of the torque converter has to fit with the engine characteristics. Aside from the converter, this autobox is pretty much standardised as well.


Any comments on this are welcome.
<<

Awildgermanappears

User avatar

Naturally Aspirated

Posts: 205

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:11 am

Location: Germany

Cars: Nissan Note

Post Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:28 am

Re: Engine line up, fit for mass production and standardisat

I see you are using maxed out quality sliders on the engines. Doing so increases the production units in an exponential manner, which can have a drastically negative effect on the total price of a car when installed (a car with maxed out quality sliders can easily end up costing $500k, even if its just a small hatchback). Seeing as you use a quite oversquare bore/stroke ratio, you can reduce the quality slider on the bottom end significantly without it reducing the reliability too much. Same goes for the exhaust, the benefit of increasing quality on the exhaust are even more negligible. +5 quality on everything also achieves decent results, but is significantly easier and cheaper to produce.
IMP Automotive Empire:

IMP Automobilbau
Monolith Motors
LaVache Horseless Carriages
<<

theh4x0r1337

Posts: 117

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:21 am

Location: antarctica

Cars: benz e63 amg

Post Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:34 am

Re: Engine line up, fit for mass production and standardisat

dat quality slider tho. you want a mass production engine, these engines are not
they are more of the hand-made kind- expensive, need lot of time to make
Image Image
<<

NeoOgre

Posts: 1

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:45 pm

Cars: 95' Buick LeSabre Custom (70k miles and garage kept)
12' Kia Soul

Post Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: Engine line up, fit for mass production and standardisat

Holy material costs :roll:
My average 2.0 has a material cost around $750. Of course they don't have the reliability or that torque.

Return to Engine Sharing Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron