0.5 L challenge

I ran a couple cars through the loop, and I got some fairly surprising results:

Autobelli 70: 3.1 miles / 23.47 mpg. Not bad, and certainly reasonable for the era. I did have it drop below 50 on the first hairpin, but I personally don't count that, as it wasn't a result of the Autobelli running out of fuel.


Satsuma AMP 1000: 6.0 miles / 45.426 mpg. Probably very high for its age, and I only counted the Satsuma's range after its fuel level reached 0.


Why, you might ask? Well, this car is currently bugged, and can be driven without fuel perfectly fine.


Gavril Roamer 4WD LXT Facelift (standard): 1.4 miles / 10.6 mpg. This was absolutely destroyed by the first hairpin; if that turn hadn't been there, I reckon it would've gone much further.


Gavril Roamer 4WD LXT Facelift (6.0L diesel V8 swapped): 1.9 miles / 14.39 mpg. This was also absolutely destroyed by the first hairpin, but thankfully, it had enough fuel to keep going for a half-mile longer.

 

Careful what you are comparing please:

1L of Petrol contains: 8,77 kW/h
1L of Diesel contains: 9,86 Kw/h


So if we are comparing the range of different power source vehicles, to be fair we have to compare the actual energy value consumed to discuss efficiency:

0.5 L of petrol = 4,385 kW/h

0.5 L of diesel = 4,93 kW/h - arround 11 % more energy per liter of fuel = 11 % more range. And that is before you consider the inherent efficiency advantages of diesels.

0,5 kW/H of battery = 0,5 kW/h of battery.


50L Petrol = 438,5 kW/h

50L Diesel = 493 kW/h

50 kW/h Battery = 50 kW/h


It is easy to see why ICE powered vehicles still in general enjoy a range advantage. Carrying almost 10 times the energy with them offsets their lousy efficiency.

Estimated energy consumption and range for 50L/50 kW/h:

Petrol: 7.5L 100 km = 31,35mpg = 667 km / 414.45 miles of range @ 65,775 kW/h 100 km
Diesel: 6.0L 100 km = 39,20mpg 833 km / 517.6 miles of range @ 59,16 kW/h 100 km
Electric: 20 kW/h 100 km = 250 km / 155,34 miles of range @ 20 kW/h 100 km


An electric vehicle is arround 3 times as energy efficient in operation as an internal combustion engine one. As a result, for range parity, it needs only arround 1/3 of the energy content of a 50L fuel tank and can afford 3 times the mass for the same energy content. At the moment, this isnt the case and batteries are much heavier than that.


The Vivaces 50L Petrol Fuel tank weights 42kg which is 0,095 kg for 1 kW/h.
The Vivaces 50L Diesel Fuel tank weights 46kg which is 0,093 kg for 1 kW/h.
The Vivaces 50 kW/h battery pack weights 405kg which is 8.1kg for 1 kW/h. On the bright side for the EV, the electric motor (and some not needed ICE components) help reduce the mass difference to an extent:

Front Electric Motor 91kg

1,2 I3 Engine 154kg

1,6 I4 Engine 208kg

2,0 I4 Engine 200kg

2,5 I5 Engine 287kg

1,5 I4 Diesel Engine 206kg

2,0 I4 Diesel Engine 243kg


This results in "only" 1700 kg which is:

200 - 250 kg of mass increase compared to a similar performance ICE car
310kg of additional weight compared to the base ICE I3 model.


Considering that the EV has to move more mass... it 3 times better energy efficiency is even more impressive. It is this basic enormous efficieny advantage of a a electric motor in combination with an inreasingly competive battery and charging technology that will spell doom for most ICE powered cars within the next decade. Using german prices..... ICE cars cant even compete in operating costs now...... with fuel prices at the rock bottom:

Petrol: 1,25 X 7,5L = 9,375 € /100 KM
Diesel: 1,05 X 6 = 6,30 € /100 KM
Electricity: 0,30 € X 20 kW/H = 6,00 € /100 KM

Before Covid:

Petrol: 1,45 X 7,5L =10,875 € /100 KM
Diesel: 1,25 X 6 = 7,50 € /100 KM
Electricity: 0,30 € X 20 kW/H = 6,00 € /100 KM


Even with high electricity prices and low fuel prices..... an EV is cheaper to operate. And that is before you consider all the parts that cant break down because they dont exist.


Anyway... enough rambling... will run some tests in BeamNG tomorrow.

 

Interesting challenge.


Decided to try this with my (current) default car: which is a ETK 856 ttSport+ with OZ rims and sport tyres (and a stage 1 turbo and stock internals, so it makes 457BHP).

as yall can see, it did 7.3 kms (4.5 miles) before running out of gas. and averaged a fuel economy of 6.7 L/100km (35 mpg).



didn't do so bad, i think. i really didn't expect this kind of efficiency from this car.

 

All of this is irrelevant in BeamNG currently, because instead of having very efficient "engines" and very small-capacity "fuel tanks" (like real-life electrics), BeamNG electric cars are the exact opposite. Batteries store the equivalent of 20, 40, even 53 gallons of fuel, but to make the range realistic, the motors are less efficient than 1900s race cars.

The Tograc qE, for example, has a 40-"gallon" (~1350 kWh) battery, but averages around 6 mpg at 55 mph


Likewise, the eSBR can have a 53-"gallon" (~1,800 kWh) battery, but can only achieve around 7 mpg at 55 mph in stock eSBR 800 form.


However, assuming I did my math right (0.5 L / (3.78 L/gal) = 0.1322 gal * (33.7 kWh/gal) ~ 4.5 kWh), the range of the electrics is fairly realistic - and quite OP compared to the gas/diesel cars. The Tograc qE, filled with "2.38 gallons" (BeamNG's equivalent of 4.5 kWh), consumes 1.35 of those "gallons" every 8.3 miles.


Dividing 2.38 by 0.1322 gives us a ratio between BeamNG kWh and real kWh of about 18.

8.3 miles / 1.35 gallons = 6.148 * 18 = 111 MPG-e

That's a lotta MPGs...and very realistic for a modern electric car. But how it's done is unfortunately not so realistic.

 

Man, sorry for going offtopic, but I always love your posts. There's always math, calculations, and reasoning behind your posts. They always go in depth and really point out flaws in the game, and sometimes even solutions to those problems.

 

I don't think such a vague statement warranted this level of reply considering the rather guaranteed chance for misunderstanding but alright. The whole point of me testing that 8.2L V8 3500 HP engine was to show that the way this game calculates things is far from reality, which of course is to be expected being that the team has a lot of work in a lot of basic areas ahead of them.

 

-Right then, I tried my ETK 836td with the 8speed transmission instead of the 10speed.

It managed to do 4.7 miles at 60mph, with an avg of 33 according to the cars built-in reading. This is very impressive.
The tunnel was where it got most of its high mpg. In the tunnel, I got above 43mpg most of the time.
This might be because I aired the tires to 40psi before starting. Still amazing results for this car!

-I also tried the 10-speed Etk 836 TT- Sport and the results were not as good.
It did 2.9 miles with an avg of 23mpg. I did the same speed as last time.

-I then tried the Cherrier f320 with the v6. It managed to do a pretty good 2.8 miles, very close to the gas ETK.



All of these cars probably would have done better but the first hairpin destroyed most of them. Both ETK's changed up and the cherrier increased its engine RPMs.

I might do more tests later.

 

1.3 miles in my default Roamer on 0.5L of fuel.

Ibishu Pigeon 600cc: 1.3 miles
Ford F-150 SVT Raptor: 1.3 miles

 

I got 4.76 L/100 km (49.39 MPG) in a heavily stripped Vivace 150d.

 

Didn't do bad I guess

Figures on screen
distance was 7.08mi / 11.4km for ref

car;
Satsuma AMP 1000 w/ Fuel injection, 5 speed overdrive gearbox, 3.7:1 diff ratio, 39psi tire pressures. Otherwise stock. @ 89kmh engine is doing 2450rpm

 

base model manual etk 800, just let it idle in 6th at 29 km/h the whole time and switched off the engine on the downhills
13.2km/8.2mi at 62.1 US mpg

 

Cool, but doesn't comply with the rules.

 

bruh i cant read apparently, lmao

 

Well would you look at that.

Looks like I have the record for the best mileage here! A whopping 1.9 kilometers in my chopped and channelled supercharged detective car..
--- Post updated ---

Tried the Skoda 120, and I got a very surprising 9.4km. However, I could have gotten more if it weren't for the corners in the tunnel. My fuel consumption took a big sh!t on the corners.

 

Managed to get 7.7 km (4.784558 miles) in a Vivace Dynamique 110 (M)

 

My Automation car ran for 15.3 km, or 9.5 miles.

It achieved 3.3L/100KM, or 71.28 Miles Per Gallon.

 

idk how to get a pic on a reply so i made about 12 miles in the t series stock

 

Tried the Skoda 120, and I got a very surprising 9.4km. However, I could have gotten more if it wer

I printscreen, send it to an alt on discord, Snipping tool it, save it, click on "Upload a file" and find the image to attach it.

 

You can just use snipping tool/snip and sketch in game, and then find the file and upload it from quick access. You don't have to go through all that.

it's Win + Shift + S