Newbie Questions

[Deskyx]

You sound like you are running a very agressive cam profile.

This is probably part of your fuel consumption problem.

The solution if you want more torque w/o killing power is to make a larger engine with less agressive cams.

Although you seem to be running boost, in that case the solution might be to put a smaller turbo in, although this will definitively reduce max power.

Also, make sure that your cam profile and turbo size are optimised with each other.

I whacked the cams all the way down to 60 or 50. It robbed me of power which is why I wanted to know if it is possible to get better low end without losing too much power.

No turbochargers, just a 4.5 liter V8.

[adamd]

I find you can sometimes eke out a bit extra low end if you tweak ignition timing/compression, but as trackpaduser says, don't expect huge changes to happen if you're running a super high cam profile.

[USDMFTW]

Got it to work and revised it for you, i made alot of changes, redone the whole engine, and modified some of the trim choices, tires etc.
There is no replacement for displacement.

USDMFTW Revised Sports Proto.rar

(19.33 KiB) Downloaded 206 times

[Slim Jim]

However is there a way to improve MPG? My car is running at the leanest possible settings and still churns out 28 mpg while I saw a guy get 50 mpg on a V8 with not much less power.

Also in improving low end torque, I have no idea how to this aside from reducing the cam profile, which cuts power by a sizable amount. Is there a technique for better low end performance without losing too much power and economy?

When I downloaded your car you were running regular fuel. If you want better fuel economy without any other sacrifices, you need to run a higher octane. This will allow you to add more advanced timing and/or higher compression = better fuel economy. You can also improve low-end torque that way as well, without sacrificing power.

However, as others have said, a high cam profile will kill fuel economy. Fuel economy cams are usually in 30-40 range. With a cam profile that low, you will either need a bigger engine (edit: USDMFTW beat me to it!!!), or turbos, to compensate for the drop in power. Welcome to the world of automotive design compromises!

That said, fuel economy is not only based on how efficient an engine is. It's also based on how aerodynamic the car is, and light it is. Unless your weight and drag are comparable to "that-guy-that-got-50-mpg-with-around-the-same-power-in-a-V8", you can't compare your car to his. I do not recall if your car had direct injection, but that's an easy way to increase mpg's...plus it'll allow you to add more timing and compression with the same benefits as described above.

Have fun!

[Deskyx]

Got it to work and revised it for you, i made alot of changes, redone the whole engine, and modified some of the trim choices, tires etc.
There is no replacement for displacement.

I finally had time to go look at it today and it was excellent. Everything was improved significantly.

I wish more people understood "no replacement for displacement".

[USDMFTW]

Got it to work and revised it for you, i made alot of changes, redone the whole engine, and modified some of the trim choices, tires etc.
There is no replacement for displacement.

I finally had time to go look at it today and it was excellent. Everything was improved significantly.

I wish more people understood "no replacement for displacement".

Thats what wrong with modern non turbo engines, they keep them small which makes the power band non existent before 4k rpms, which hurts performance and fuel economy.

[PhillipM]

I wish more people understood "no replacement for displacement".

There's 2. They're called RPM's and Superchargers!

[USDMFTW]

I wish more people understood "no replacement for displacement".

There's 2. They're called RPM's and Superchargers!

Superchargers are my favorite, i love the L67s and L32s.

[Deskyx]

I have noticed AWD basically shoots up performance on anything. Is there a way to match an AWD car's performance with an RWD car? I'm pretty sure the characteristics of both cars are heavily exaggerated.

[USDMFTW]

I have noticed AWD basically shoots up performance on anything. Is there a way to match an AWD car's performance with an RWD car? I'm pretty sure the characteristics of both cars are heavily exaggerated.

In this game, no there are not enough options and parts to get rwd as quick as awd in a straight line.

[Killrob]

Considering AWD and RWD are full simulations of their real counterparts, I would like to point out that: "Reality heavily exaggerates the characteristics of AWD" ;-P

[Slim Jim]

The Corvette has the best power-to-weight ratio and the widest rear tires of the group... with the slowest 0-60. Makes sense to me.

It does outbrake and outhandle the others though.

[Deskyx]

Considering AWD and RWD are full simulations of their real counterparts, I would like to point out that: "Reality heavily exaggerates the characteristics of AWD" ;-P

So is there no way to achieve good laptimes with an RWD car aside from ludicrous downforce?

[Killrob]

That depends on what you mean with "good" anything sub 1:20 is pretty stellar on the airfield track, and that is possible with RWD. The fastest times will always come from AWD vehicles though.

[Deskyx]

I've made 2 high performance editions of my car. The first one a Z06 rip-off I was extremely happy with because I shaved nearly 7 seconds of the lap time while adding only 5000 to the MSRP as well as improving everything.

Now I've dumped an additional 10k into the car to try and make a ZR1 rip-off and sure enough got it to under 1:19. However in another thread I saw that somebody made a mid-engine supercar that posted around the same lap time at half the cost and 200 hp down. I know mid-engined cars will have better performance characteristics in general, but am I doing something wrong?