automationgame.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:36 am**

Seeing as most of the turbo engines I've seen on here have one, two, but never three of the following: high-end power, low-end power, and efficiency.

Therefore, I've decided to develop 2 general-usage turbo engines that are both (fairly) powerful in all ranges and efficient.

I have to start using a different image host, imgur literally butchers images.

Inline-6: 91.5x120 / 220+HP @3000-6100rpm / 450+Nm @1450-3800rpm
V-8: 98x120 / 330+HP @3300-6100rpm / 700+Nm @1650-3250rpm

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:37 am**

XYReis wrote:Seeing as most of the turbo engines I've seen on here have one, two, but never three of the following: high-end power, low-end power, and efficiency

I don't think your engines are quite powerful enough for their displacement and weight to be honest. Try a smaller displacement, and get a little more aggressive with the tuning.

Good job though

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:33 am**

Now thats what im talking about! a big ass power band which makes for no power drops between gear changes.
But i agree with Deskjetser though. Also, i understand the low boost to get better efficiency but i dont think that different will realy make a different in the fuel consumption over all. I think limiting a turbo to such low boost makes for a bad value per performance. Also, higher boost wont decrease the efficiency very much.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2013 1:23 pm**

I know the engines are fairly weak for their displacement, but a long stroke is required for high efficiency; I'll try to make a ~2.8l I4 with VVL to supplement high-end power, with at least 30% efficiency.

The problem with high boost is losing traction while the turbo is spooling: you can't really jump 100+HP in 1000rpm in a production car; I'm pretty sure this problem will be solved when we get sequential or compound turbos.

Posted: **Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:45 pm**

XYReis wrote:I know the engines are fairly weak for their displacement, but a long stroke is required for high efficiency;

Why do people keep saying this? All my eco engines have smaller stroke than bore...

Take a look at this engine, its efficient, decently powerful for its displacement, runs on 91 fuel and it's a short stroke with a long lifespan without having a low redline.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:41 am**

Deskjetser wrote:
XYReis wrote:I know the engines are fairly weak for their displacement, but a long stroke is required for high efficiency;

Why do people keep saying this? All my eco engines have smaller stroke than bore...

Take a look at this engine, its efficient, decently powerful for its displacement, runs on 91 fuel and it's a short stroke with a long lifespan without having a low redline.

Even though it's a good idea -- Sorry to tell you this, but your engine wouldn't be good for mass production as it requires over 240 man hours (mine probably wouldn't be too good as well with its 80+ MH) - VVL on engines with more than 6 cylinders is generally not a good idea.

I've got some constructive criticism for you:

- Seriously, reduce the bore and increase the stroke - your engine is just too large for a 5-liter. The alternative isn't always better. (low-friction pistons+low stroke instead of forged pistons+high stroke)
- Expensive conrods are useless when limited by pistons.
- Nobody uses 91 RON any more, especially in such powerful engines - you may have gotten this confused with the American 91 AKI fuel.
- Your MTBF is fairly low in contrast to your quality settings, probably because of the low-friction pistons.
- I don't recommend using high quality settings in the exhaust section unless you're making 1500+HP, it takes a lot of man hours which you could spend elsewhere.
- It's too loud.

I edit your engine a bit, now it's smaller, a bit more powerful, has a higher MTBF, lower man hours and just slightly lower efficiency (266 vs 270g/kWh), however, it runs on 95 RON which is standard in Europe. (I think it's equal to 89 AKI)

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:30 am**

XYReis wrote:*Snip*

The engine is a sports engine designed specifically for 1 sedan, as such size is not an issue.

91 fuel simply because it gives the engine the ability to be fueled in many countries.

No sports engine is too loud, mufflers will be fitted to models to conform to specific countries noise regulations upon export.

The man hours are really not that high, your just used to seeing alot of sub three digit numbers. 272 hours at $17.5/hr wage is $4760, plus the material costs of $2499 means that the engine totals at around $7259. Given that the engine goes into a car of which its lowest model costs $25000, the engine makes up for 29% of that, the production and materials of the car costing an unknown amount. I think this is reasonable for a sporty sedan. Although I will be attempting to reduce the production costs.

However, I have to agree, and I failed to see, the titanium conrods are pointless.

*Edit* I was talking about the earlier revision of this engine, and I just realised it's MBTF is 70,000km+, which is actually good, so i'm not sure what your talking about the MBTF being poor.

Posted: **Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:42 am**

Deskjetser wrote:
*Edit* I was talking about the earlier revision of this engine, and I just realised it's MBTF is 70,000km+, which is actually good, so i'm not sure what your talking about the MBTF being poor.

It's relatively poor, if you take into account that you used +5 quality in the bottom end section; with such quality adjustments you should have an 80+k km MTBF.
Anyway, increasing the fueling section quality increases MTBF the most unless you're limited by the conrods and pistons.

EDIT: I should also add that when you have high man hours, it takes a lot of time to build an engine unless you have many parallel workers building, which increases the cost further.
I think the average time for rebuilding an average Inline-4 is around 30-40 hours IRL.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:04 am**

I've updated the engines.

Inline-6: 254HP -> 307HP, 31.13% -> 34.52%
V8: 361HP -> 487HP, 30.19% -> 30.30%, bottlenecked by the exhaust; can reach 506HP at 28.86% efficiency.

EDIT: Higher quality pics added.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:39 pm**

Not very efficient if MTBF is 0

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:08 am**

Great engines, bro! I do have one suggestion though; take away some efficiency to build a better torque curve. Here's my WT5 I6 4.6L to show you what I mean.

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:00 am**

SamSheepDoq wrote:Great engines, bro! I do have one suggestion though; take away some efficiency to build a better torque curve. Here's my WT5 I6 4.6L to show you what I mean.

Try it out, here: Download

Your link doesn't work.
I agree the torque falls a bit too fast (the red line in the aspiration tab is flat, though?!), but I'll keep more power for a different version or perhaps even series.

Also, the MTBF is around the same as the previous revisions' (70000+km@6100rpm), except I extended the RPM limit to 12k rpm just to show off the power band.
I think the MTBF rating shouldn't be taken as very important anyway since noone will rev over 6500+ for more than a few seconds.

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:37 am**

The turbo design tab doesn't accurately show your final power band, it shows theoretical power and actual turbo power, but your actual power will include your engine's power. It really is a matter of guess and check on turbo builds, in my opinion. The link doesn't work because I took it back down. I could revise your engine if you'd like?

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:41 am**

Sure, I'll upload the engines as attachments.
I improved them further:

Inline-6: 307HP -> 331HP, 34.52% -> 34.55%
V8: 488HP -> 494HP, 30.30% -> 30.40%

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:08 pm**

XYReis wrote:Sure, I'll upload the engines as attachments.
I improved them further:

Inline-6: 307HP -> 331HP, 34.52% -> 34.55%
V8: 488HP -> 494HP, 30.30% -> 30.40%

Properly tuned turbocharger.

Download

automationgame.com

Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸

Re: Usable and efficient turbo engines.¸