FAQ  •  Login

Nineties Econobox Challenge. *revisions and reviewing*

<<

Sebesseg

Posts: 100

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:38 am

Cars: '15 Charger Rallye

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:31 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

@Koolkei: Ah you were giving general fuel economy advice, that's my bad. I thought you were mentioning it for this competition. VVT can go either way for me. It doesn't always add a lot, but it doesn't cost that much more either.

Honestly I don't value one over the other. I can see why you think that based on my wording so I can't fault you. I explained it the way I did because you design the engine first. Since I tend to go with power first and only look at efficiency at the end, I laid it out that way to appeal more to the same sort of person. The type of person who needs to say "It’s ok that it’s not making at least 100HP because you got to keep those fuel numbers up" to correct any problem with the inappropriateness of the engine. To use the 1.5L and 1L engine comparison, I was correcting the 1.5L having 100HP vs the 1L's 70HP. Once you reign in the 1.5L then you realize it’s probably bigger than it needs to be. Then we move onto the next section of the car where you can manage the weight given an appropriate engine.

The reliability penalty, to me at least, isn't really that big a deal...well depends on what you are touching. You take a bigger hit from installing a basic radio than slamming the seat slider all the way down to lose the weight, for example. Of course I really don’t like not including a radio and I really don’t like basic seats if I can help it. Although the sedan required drastic choices to make it work with what I wanted. I'm not submitting the sedan, but it was useful for insight.

Fuel sliders probably should be what gets your points first always. I merely mention it as being the last thing you should do because of the need to manage production units. You don’t want to go too crazy with the sliders early on. Front and rear suspension setups do carry weight (unless the weight stat listed there means something else), the Macpherson weigh less than Double Wishbone. Just as torsion beam is the lightest in the rear (well Pushrods are lighter, but they’re probably out of reach here.) They also have production unit and cost considerations, which is probably the more pressing issue for that choice. Same with suspension spring choice Standard/Progressive (I did leave out progressive) weigh “nothing” unlike hydropneumatic. Standard and progressive are similar although progressive are slightly more expensive material and PU wise. Active setups become available later, but also weigh more, yes. I merely meant don't use hydropneumatic really.

I didn’t include tires on my itemized list, but I did mention them right before.

Eh +1 aero might cost almost nothing but makes it more costly in terms of production, as the difference between 251 and 249 cars per day. If you’ve got the room sure; do you, have at it hoss.
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

For general notes: I've found that sometimes, using active suspension ruins the fuel economy far beyond what would be considered commensurate for the weight gain. I'm still not sure why.

For my 3 door hatch, I found that fuel economy potential was best when I was using a 1.3L turbo. Why would that be? One wonders. I suspect it's due to being able to gear the car and have the torque curve such that it wasn't struggling to make the speeds the economy test required in the first place. At least, it was there, with approximately 100hp, that I was hitting in excess of 50mpg.
<<

koolkei

User avatar

Posts: 947

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:35 pm

Cars: a mini 2 wheeled single cyl car :D

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:17 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

well.... yes. i probably went with the smallest engine on this one. (52mpg, but i was hitting it with HP figures around 40-ish)

this challenge kinda prioritize the engine quality without making it too expensive, and cut corners where you can everywhere else.

that said. my 'for fun' car managed to fit a pushrod suspension on the back :)

and i believe i still holds the automation record for fuel economy... @ 83.3km/l

wait. 50mpg+ with engine larger than 1l? O_O what's the weight of your car?
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

900kg. I went all -12 on the panels :twisted:
<<

koolkei

User avatar

Posts: 947

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:35 pm

Cars: a mini 2 wheeled single cyl car :D

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

^
HIGH 5. -11 on the panel = 850kgs HUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
<<

Madrias

Posts: 437

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:15 am

Cars: 2005 Hyundai Elantra GT

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

At least mine won't be found in pieces on the side of the road with rust holes in it. 0 quality on the panels.
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:20 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

If my car rusts and has holes in it, it'll get even lighter = more speed bruh :P

Also the extra weight in my car mainly comes from the engine. Also I haven't even told anybody about the LSD I snuck in there >_>
<<

koolkei

User avatar

Posts: 947

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:35 pm

Cars: a mini 2 wheeled single cyl car :D

Post Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:28 pm

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

ohhh. those LSD.... they give you a good trip and make your trip good ;)
<<

thecarlover

User avatar

Posts: 653

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:50 am

Location: Ottawa, Canada

Cars: Not the 2011 Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet in the photo.

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:54 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

If only we still had the option of polymer panels :lol: Mine weighs less than 800 kg with only -4 on the panels. But I did use quite a few lightweight materials...

It is not recommend that you drive the Solo Eco BM in very high winds.
Car showcase thread: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8227
Mods thread: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=8552

Image
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:05 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

You are also surely using a smaller platform, no?

If not, then maybe you are using aluminium panels, but that can't be the case, because otherwise how would you then reach the required PU? And all aluminium in 1993 is limited production.
<<

thecarlover

User avatar

Posts: 653

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:50 am

Location: Ottawa, Canada

Cars: Not the 2011 Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet in the photo.

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:14 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

Same platform, that really curvy 3 door hatch, and no limited production of anything ;) The engine weighs well under 100 kg, so it's not too hard to make the car weigh so little with lightweight materials and slightly lowered quality sliders in the areas that pack on the most weight. The engine was designed entirely for fuel economy, not performance, but it works well enough for such a lightweight budget economy car.
Car showcase thread: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8227
Mods thread: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=8552

Image
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:19 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

Probably my transmission is also a fair bit heavier too, what with having a) 5 cogs b) something like 170Nm to deal with.
<<

thecarlover

User avatar

Posts: 653

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:50 am

Location: Ottawa, Canada

Cars: Not the 2011 Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet in the photo.

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:25 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

strop wrote:Probably my transmission is also a fair bit heavier too, what with having a) 5 cogs b) something like 170Nm to deal with.

Yeah, mine's a 4 speed, and there's a lot less torque for it to handle. Emphasis on "a lot."
Car showcase thread: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8227
Mods thread: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=8552

Image
<<

Madrias

Posts: 437

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:15 am

Cars: 2005 Hyundai Elantra GT

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:51 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

5 speed and limited slip because I still have wheel spin.
<<

AirJordan

User avatar

Posts: 413

Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:21 am

Cars: Cee apostrophe d

Post Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:50 am

Re: Nineties Econobox Challenge. *Build Phase*

Well that was tougher than I predicted... but here it is :)

Smooth Econ BlueLine
Image

One tone of pure joy...yeah about that...It's got 69HP (riiiight). Buuuuuuut it's got alloys, 5 speed gearbox and standard 5 seats. Yeah. :D Eat that. And power steering, ABS with front disks, cassette player and plain (soon to be old and plenty rusty) steal all around. For 11340€€€ :)
Image
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.
PreviousNext

Return to Community Challenges & Competitions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests