automationgame.com

Intention was to build a lowest cost, fuel efficient, over 190hp engine.

I dont understand some things displayed.

rate if you want...

176 Manhours is definitely not low cost though, I think you might have gone a bit high on some quality settings considering that no tech points are available.

First of all if i got you right, and what you mean is a low cost engine with low fuel consumption and powerful (1700cc is very small for 190hp), then there is no such thing.
It takes 176 hours to produce your engine which is like a supercar prototype super expensive engine. Expensive straight 4 engine should take around 40 hours and low cost 25 - 30 hours, put the quality sliders back to 0 because its not necessary for your engine.

About fuel consumption, first of all, revy engines drink fuel, for economical 190hp engine i would select at least 2500cc with lower cam profile, the results will be more power at low rpm's which is one of the main things that makes en engine economical. I would also select double camshaft and direct injection for the task of making more power from the same capacity or efficiency, and again, you cant have a power, efficiency and low cost in the same engine.
Your engine's efficiency is 16% which is realy bad, "green" percentage starts from 25% considering that you also want power.

I understand more now, the man hours and the % of efficiency, but the 'quality slider' what does it do?

But i dont agree with revy engines being high consumption, when high output like this one with VVL its still torquy enough to run on very low rpm to save fuel.

The quality slider adjusts the quality of your parts. The standard is 0, which means average cost, average output. If you select a lower quality by dragging the bar to the left, then your parts will be cheaper but also less capable (less powerful, less economical, heavier etc.). And if you want higher quality, drag the slider to the right. This will increase the cost, but also the engine overall performance (more power, more economy, less weight etc.). But high quality parts will also take more time to produce and install, that's why you have so many man hours on what looks like a pretty simple engine.
My advice is set all quality sliders to 0, increase your capacity to something like 2.3-2.5 litres, set the rev limiter to 6500RPM and then make a test run and if needed make adjustments. Try direct injection or different mufflers or adjust your cam profile or take twin-cams.

Hope this helps

It helps, thanks, now i will try to replicate the D16Z6 i drive.

edit: not much success, if year is set to 1992 its barely even possible to achieve the required HP, if set to 2013 it works better but the piston and rod shows stress before redline, and the max power is reached at 7200rpm instead of 6600, max torque is also too high rpm.

Oh, that engine is in desperate need of a lower cam profile in order to stop the uneven torque curve and how late max torque is. If pistons and rods are showing signs of stress, upgrade them, and besides, once you have reduced the cam profile a bit max power and torque will come in earlier and therefore you will be able to reduce the rev limit

I suppose the pistons and rods on my car are standard cast? I kept the cam that way because it made improvment to efficiency %.

My main question is, if i set to year 1992 as the actual real engine is, why is allmost impossible to build it?

Upgrade to H Beams and forged pistons and this will greatly increase MTBF. Try making it for 1992, and see what happens.

If you want you can drop the lua file on here and I will have a look at it.

Maybe you mean i beam steel, which increases the max rpm. you dont need h beams unless you have a giant and overboosted engine or your build year is in the late 50's.

automato i made an engine based on what i think you want, the way i think it should be done.
I had to make it 6 cyls to prevent valve floating, year 1992 is pretty rough. It doesnt produces 190hp, since i went for economy, but it has a power band which yours doesnt have so with my engine you dont fall from the power so much between gear changes (the peak power is behind the rev limiter), which means faster accelerations.
You can add VVL but it will defenetly not be a cost effective option for this engine
And again, you cant have power, fuel efficiency and low cost on the same engine, so i went for some power, relatively economic and a bit pricey, manufacturing year 1992, so tell me what you think.

Quite interesting, i dont know how to translate that efficiency % into MPG on KML, in a car of about 1.400+ KG, that it would be likely used in industry, probably a saloon.

But i dont think 170hp is a good output for a straight 6, 2.5L, EFI, DOHC, not unless its super fuel efficient.

Toyota produced the JZ series, search for 1JZ-GE, its 2.5, DOHC, about 200hp, production started in 1990 i believe.

I dont know if the Civic was considered a expensive car in 1992, but aluminium Block and Head, SOHC 16V, VTEC (VVL+VVT) MPFI, 1.6L, 125HP, fuel efficient, high output.

I will continue to try to build it, and i will post it in this thread, if its possible to do it in this software, year set to 1992.

18% means crap, but again, dont try to translate it to fuel consumption cause its only one variable out of many others that affects fuel consumption.
I checked the engines you mentioned and they beat mine no dougt, but we dont really know about their tunings and there is a good chance that the engine designer isnt detailed enough, cause even though its highly detailed its still gives you very basic tuning.