Cold Steel Taxi broken?

[timmmccoy]

So playing the Cold Steel Taxi scenario, I can't hit the price target... ever.

engine I'm building is:
XL block (iron)
minimum everything, maximum flywheel weight.

only deviations from minimum are DAOHC and a single 2 barrel carb and a secondary reverse flow muffler.

image of motor and price attached.

[timmmccoy]

by taking every technology year except the exhaust one and setting it to 1948 got me under the limit. what's the reasoning for this phenomenon?

[Killrob]

Umm, the reasoning? You know about the concept of technology year? Or probably not...
If you take down the technology year below your factory year, the parts are crafted to lower standards and thus easier (faster!) to manufacture. This has the drawback that they lose a bit of quality, but the advantage that you save a few manhours and with it, total costs. You can also go to year 1950 for the exhaust tab only, as that makes available the reverse flow mufflers which give you much better muffler performance. Nothing broken about that scenario

[Kubboz]

What don't you like about the price? It's leet...

[timmmccoy]

Umm, the reasoning? You know about the concept of technology year? Or probably not...
If you take down the technology year below your factory year, the parts are crafted to lower standards and thus easier (faster!) to manufacture. This has the drawback that they lose a bit of quality, but the advantage that you save a few manhours and with it, total costs. You can also go to year 1950 for the exhaust tab only, as that makes available the reverse flow mufflers which give you much better muffler performance. Nothing broken about that scenario

can't argue with that logic, killrob. not a very big deal is made about technology year so I had been setting it to the maximum allowed by the scenario, this will change some of my other scenario solutions i reckon.

thanks for the explanation. Now i just feel silly.

[Killrob]

Feeling silly is a very common state to be in while playing the game ;( I very often feel that exact same way too... no one said it was easy (except the label on the scenario, which lies all day long of course )

[autofrank]

Every single time I try this scenario, I can't meet the economy standards. It's impossible as far as I'm concerned. I've tried dozens of variations. I can meet all aspects except economy. How is a 8000+cc engine supposed to make 241HP and have economy lower than 450g/kWh? The lowest I've had it is around high 480g/kWh, and that was with a fuel mix of 10, and cam profile of 20.



What does economy even mean? I've asked this before and normally I think of MPG or l/100km, but g/kWh? Is this supposed to be fuel economy? Why is it listed as g/kWh then? The options are MPG and l/100km in the options list. It still confuses me.

[Killrob]

There is quite a bit of good info in this one... it really isn't that hard if you grasp all the concepts:
http://youtu.be/du8UH530Fng

[Cherry79]

You can go way down with the cam-profile, and you'll easily reach the economy-goal.
See attached file. Don't worry about the message concerning the to-high torque, it still gives plenty of points

[Trifler]

After a lot of tweaking, I managed to get 1658 with no errors (torque, rpm, octane, etc.) using an XL block.

[MAC_HATER]

What don't you like about the price? It's leet...

Zing!

[Trifler]

Does it make sense for the service cost to be so high you're basically replacing the engine every six months?

[Killrob]

Nope, it doesn't make sense. There are a lot of prices and stuff which don't make any sense still (will be fixed!), but it doesn't matter either, the scenario is balanced such that it all works out anyway.

[Trifler]

Nope, it doesn't make sense. There are a lot of prices and stuff which don't make any sense still (will be fixed!), but it doesn't matter either, the scenario is balanced such that it all works out anyway.

That's cool. It wouldn't really surprise me if governments really did stuff like that with our tax dollars.