Ever wanted to cut costs? Engineering time getting too high? Production units soaring through the roof? RON still knock-knocking on your door? I know I have felt all of the above; that's why I typically use these helpful tips and tricks that might help you with building your Automation vehicles. While each vehicle body type will have their own techniques of saving costs/engineering time/production units, I've found that these work the best for just about any type of vehicle. Age: Newer (post-2000) vehicles - and even those in the '80s and '90s - typically require a lot more fancy stuff than their '40s or '50s counterparts. Safety requirements are higher, solid axle suspensions and ladder frames are no longer in style, DOHC setups and EFI/direct injection systems are needed to reduce pollution, turbochargers are in style for more power, and just about anything and everything that could be cut off to save time, money, or units are almost mandatory if you want to have high market scores. Therefore, making a car between 1955 (around the time when radial tires and disc brakes begin to come out) and 1995 (when cars start getting too fancy and costly to keep within reasonable limits) will allow you to make as many different car types as possible. Body types: These often have different expectations of what types of tech should be inside, what engines and transmissions should be used, and how fancy the engines should be. A high-end mid-1990s sports car or sedan will typically have/need a monocoque aluminum/carbon-fiber body and chassis with double-wishbone suspension, a DOHC V12 with the best tech, and the fanciest interiors available. Meanwhile a budget 1940s delivery vehicle can get away with/demand a ladder frame with a pushrod OHV L4, 3-speed manual, solid axles, and the most basic interior imaginable. Typically, utility and delivery vehicles demand the simplest tech, while premium and sports cars need the most complex. The Big Five: These are areas which can easily drive up costs, time, and units more than anything else (even relative to their gains). They can be a little tough to work with (as the people want the options that typically eat into budgets, especially in the newer/premium markets), but they do have their workarounds. From their appearances in the typical Automation vehicle and engine build process: Chassis/drivetrain types: Although the ladder frame takes only 2 months to engineer, it is not very popular outside of the more utility-minded segments. Typically, a monocoque chassis will be used for almost all vehicles, although this does take at least 12 months to engineer. Space frames have few applications after monocoques come into usage, and they take at least 16 months to engineer. Front-engined drivetrain setups take only 12 months to engineer (included with the frame), while a rear-engined configuration will add 2 months; mid-engine setups take 3 more months. Therefore, changing a space-framed mid- or rear-engined vehicle to a monocoque or ladder-frame FR or FF setup could save up to 20 months of engineering time and 50 production units alone. And that's not counting... Engine type: Overall, less cylinders will mean less engineering time (there's a difference of about 15 months between an L3 and a V12) and less octane, while less displacement will reduce octane, as well. Therefore, it's best to go with as small of an engine as possible to produce power reliably (although you can reasonably run V8s and V12s on regular gas and still make 150-250+ horsepower). Also, all-cast-iron engines can shave off anywhere between 6 months and over a year's worth of engineering time alone (but increases weight significantly). Valvetrain configs: Pushrods and direct-acting OHC setups might take the least amount of time to engineer (at about 10-15 months each with an iron head), but neither of these are very efficient, and both restrict power and RPMs (pushrods significantly so). However, a DOHC setup (especially with big engines with lots of cylinders) absolutely eats away at engineering time (sometimes taking 30+ months with an aluminum head and a 5-valve setup). Therefore, a SOHC engine with 3 or 4 valves is the best compromise between pushrods and DOHC, and can save between 3 to 8 months of engineering time (possibly more) while still getting good power and fuel economy. Fuel systems: A single-barrel/single-carb setup might be extremely basic and cheap, taking about a month to engineer, but it's by no means adequate for making power even in 1946. However, direct injection - while cutting octane by about 4 or 5 points compared to a multi-point EFI setup - takes almost 2 years to engineer - making it only worth installing on the highest-end vehicles with turbo engines. Typically, single- or multi-point EFI is the best setup for cars 1980 and later, taking 8 to 16 months to engineer, while before 1980, a couple of single-barrel-eco or four-barrel carbs - or even a mechanical injection setup - will take between 2 and 15 months to engineer and still keep octane down while power and fuel economy go up. Interiors: While not exactly eating through time or units, this area can get costly quick. Up to $10,000+ can be spent here alone by going with a hand-made interior with the best entertainment - and that's not getting into the increased quality that will be necessary to make it palatable to the premium markets. Meanwhile, a basic interior with no entertainment can cost about $300 or $500 (and is typically preferred by the budget or utility segments). However, even though higher performance often requires higher quality of interior, the Fun and Track segments often can go with very little entertainment (if any) and still have fun with your vehicle. Overall, these tips and tricks have helped me turn cars that were once overly expensive, took too long to engineer, and ate up production units into inexpensive, easy-to-engineer, and easy-to-build vehicles that were much more competitive. Also, here's a great place to find lots more info on engines: http://discourse.automationgame.com/t/engine-design-guide-part-3-bottom-end/25112
For those of you who might be wondering just how low you can go before you lose competitiveness, the answer is...VERY. VERY. Low. Meet Alfie, my very own pink van built on the '45 2.0-meter van body. This atrocious disservice to humanity beautiful little happy boy has been engineered so cheaply that even I'm amazed by how little it would take to build him. Specs: Engineering Time: 27.9 months (15.5 Car/12.4 Engine) Production Units: 76.7 (62.5 Car/14.2 Engine) Material Costs: $2,002 ($1,679 Car/$323 Engine) Fuel: Regular Leaded Bottom End: Cast Iron 894-cc L3 Top End: Cast Iron SOHC 2-Valve Power: 31.5 hp @ 4900 RPM Redline: 5200 RPM Fuel System: N/A Single Barrel Eco Carb Weight: 1,726 pounds Suspension: Double Wishbone (F) / Semi Trailing Arm (R) Gearbox: 4-speed Manual (originally a 2-speed) Chassis: Steel Ladder / Steel Panels Drivetrain: Front Engine/Rear-Wheel-Drive Over-Cuteness: Through The Roof Price: $6,000 (with 20% markup) Competitiveness: 80-260 Market Score (all applicable categories)
You're welcome! I might try to revise one of my older (relative to when I built them) vehicles to fit my own rule set. I've got a 2000 van with a 2.5-liter DOHC direct-injected L6, and I'm thinking that I could chop about 20 months off its 72-month engineering time and cut down the production units by downgrading its mechanicals slightly. Of course, I won't go as low as I did with Alfie; that'd be way too low for 2000. Also, I've provided a link to a great engine design guide that goes into way more detail on engines. It shows what kind of engines and engine mechanicals are available at the start, when parts and engines unlock, what strengths and weaknesses each engine type and component has, and much, much more.
Also, subscribe to the Automation forum and take part on the build competitions. Usually the limits imposed on this competitions force you into build a realistic car. I just lost a competition because my 700kg 70's datsun was too unsafe. But I had to lower the safety to get the weight I needed.
