Man With a Van Challenge! (Second Review)

[Tycondero]

since i never shown my van either.

had it used the turbo engine (without optimization tweaking, simply an engine swap)

like.... mine is super comfortable, much more easier to drive, have higher prestige, super low fuel consumption, lower emissions
(11.42km/l = 8.75 l/100km = 32.25 MPG US) (10.62km/l = 9.41l/100km = 29.99MPG US)
high safety, high practicality, is pretty light (why is mine called heavy and slow, when it's only slow?)

literally...... the thing that's holding me back is the comparatively weak engine......

so much regret

Tbh I do not think a more powerful engine by a turbo would have helped. At least not for this challenge so much.

[EnryGT5]

I'm honestly surprised. Never expected this design to succeed like this. It really was a gamble. I wonder if the engine's lowly output is going to hurt its score as badly as i imagined. Well, at least it exceeds an economy of 14km/l... i guess owners are going to love that

[TheTom]

my engine isn't particularly economical, but it's strong, solid, robust. 0-60mph in less than 10 seconds and great reliability are the main selling points for my engine. Plus, with the AWD system and an automatic gearbox, anyone can drive it. On top of that, it's got great ride comfort thanks to its suspension setup which, combined with its great overall reliability, makes it an ideal car for going long distances frequently.

[koolkei]

About fuel.

In the states, the avg 1-ton cargo van gets 11mpg.

For reference.

The vans here usually get 2-3 litres diesel engines, with 120-160 hp. They can carry around 1800 kg and yet get over 10 km/l (under 10 l/100 km, or 23.5 MPG US, 30 UK MPG).

hehehe. exactly my van? 3.2l with 156 HP with 10.62km/l. gasoline though, no diesel in the game yet

[KLinardo]

That is what I was building for as well. A HD van. If I knew he wanted a LD van, I would have built that.

I guess we just have to put our 'Muricaness aside when we participate in these challenges. I would hardly call a Ford Transit Connect a van by our standards, but I'm sure not too many countries besides those in North America use the large vehicles we do on such a regular basis. Our regular duty vans and trucks generally just dwarf their European and Asian counterparts. Next time I'll ask for clarification.

I would love to see a heavy duty challenge. I was thinking about trying to come up with "The Farm Truck Challenge".

[BlastersPewPew]

I wouldnt even call a Connect a normal van in Europe, there are MUCH larger vans there than those, they are the mini-vans of Europe. They are the baby brother to the big Transit, the Sprinters, those Opel things........ If I would have known this was a city van challenge I wouldnt have made a big Transit/old Merc looking thing.

EDIT: Dont take this personally OP, it is just that the rules werent as clear to us as you may have seen them to be.

[Zabhawkin]

Definitely cant blame the OP, part of it is the difference in perceptions we see delivery van and think of the Fed ex and UPS vans running around carrying 2-3 tons of packages.

But also it is an artifact of the way we (not just the OP) have been setting up the competitions where cost is such a huge driving factor. I noticed it big time with my last competition, cars that performed half as good as others were winning because they were so cheap.

With a fixed cost, or even a cost range it will still favor a smaller less overall capable vehicle because they will have more money to invest in other parts bringing up their overall score.

[strop]

I'm a bit confused. Are people concerned because they made a van that was designed to carry more than they thought the competition required, or less?

Because I made a 2-3 ton van (with 16-17MPG) and it's in the reviews.

[KLinardo]

I'm a bit confused. Are people concerned because they made a van that was designed to carry more than they thought the competition required, or less?

Because I made a 2-3 ton van (with 16-17MPG) and it's in the reviews.

It's one thing to build a chassis that can support 2 to 3 tons. It's another thing to build a motor capable of moving a fully loaded chassis effectively. My reasoning is that my van gets less mileage and is less driveable due to being so large. If you loaded down a van with a small motor, both its performance and economy would suffer much more than a van like mine where it was designed with the load in mind. Automation and the challenge doesn't account for the loaded utility, just the utility potential. Therefore we had different ideas about what aspects of the build to emphasize in our designs that may have had more real world practicality based on our experience. I'm not faulting OP at all. Just discussing why I built the way I did and what I expected going in. Those are my own presumptions.

[Lordred]

I'm a bit confused. Are people concerned because they made a van that was designed to carry more than they thought the competition required, or less?

Because I made a 2-3 ton van (with 16-17MPG) and it's in the reviews.

I have no issue with the result. I built a "1-Ton" van, but if I knew he had 'Ford Transit' on the mind, I would of aimed for a '1/2-ton'

I am Proud of my 7th place!


(Basicly, I would of use the SX4, instead of the SX8)

[TheTom]

where can i see in-game how much my van can load? All I know is it's got 6159L of cargo volume, but I don't know how much weight it can move.

[BlastersPewPew]

You cant, there is no stat for load capacity, it is just lumped into Utility.

[strop]

I'm a bit confused. Are people concerned because they made a van that was designed to carry more than they thought the competition required, or less?

Because I made a 2-3 ton van (with 16-17MPG) and it's in the reviews.

It's one thing to build a chassis that can support 2 to 3 tons. It's another thing to build a motor capable of moving a fully loaded chassis effectively. My reasoning is that my van gets less mileage and is less driveable due to being so large. If you loaded down a van with a small motor, both its performance and economy would suffer much more than a van like mine where it was designed with the load in mind. Automation and the challenge doesn't account for the loaded utility, just the utility potential. Therefore we had different ideas about what aspects of the build to emphasize in our designs that may have had more real world practicality based on our experience. I'm not faulting OP at all. Just discussing why I built the way I did and what I expected going in. Those are my own presumptions.

I see. So in a way, I'm guessing that I was actually at an advantage because I have no experience with utility vehicles in real life, and was therefore purely building based on the calculations Automation provides.

...or was I? Once the results are out I'll submit all of my stats and you guys can interpret just what kind of van I actually did put together.

[DoctorNarfy]

I was wondering that too, If Automation calculates weight as well as capacity, but I made this challenge without knowing that. I didn't have a "Low Duty" or "High Duty" Model in mind. But, If it's clarification of what exactly to make, perhaps we should discuss that before people send in cars

[koolkei]

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

when's the 1-5 reviews are coming out?