Doing something like this in the real world turns up some interesting revelations. For context, the vehicle in question is a 2007 Toyota Tacoma, 4.0l 1GR-FE V6 mated to 5 speed auto, 4WD, crew cab, long box. Having made no changes internally to the engine, I focused the majority of my efforts on removing as many design compromises while retaining as much stock equipment as possible. Here's how I approached it: 1. Remove any stock restrictions to the engine's ability to breath in and out effectively. This leads to a K&N cold air intake and a URD long-tube header exhaust system, which allows for less restriction in and out, but also comes with the added benefit of removing mass from the chassis, in turn making the vehicle lighter overall. While it may not be significant in scale when compared to the overall mass of the vehicle, I like to take the approach of 'ounces make pounds', and the sum is greater than the individual parts. 2. Remove unnecessary mass from the drivetrain, and thus lower the parasitic drag created by the excess mass. This was achieved by changing out 3 things: driveshafts, rims, and tires. The driveshafts were changed over from the stock multi-piece shafts to one-piece aluminum shafts(savings of 4 lbs for rear shaft and 1.3 lbs front), both reducing the overall mass of the shafts front and rear, and also shortening the diameter of the shaft, meaning that the centrifugal force of spinning the shaft was less at any given rpm because the radius was shorter (1lb at 1ft vs 1lb at 2ft...). I took this same approach with the rims. While the stock rims are truly decent heavier-duty aluminum rims, they are still heavy. I replaced those with a set of Enkei RPT-1 rims that came in the same dimensions (width, diameter and offset) as the stock versions, but were more than 10 lbs lighter than the stock ones, meaning a total loss of about 40 lbs of rotating mass. The tires I chose were a set of Michelin Primacy's in identical configuration as the stock tires, but they too were lighter than the stock Michelin's coming in at 31 lbs a piece instead of 38, so another 28 lbs of rotating mass lost, but because the tire's mass is concentrated at the furthest point from the center of rotation, they produce the greatest effect overall. Total drivetrain mass lost is ~ 74 lbs total. 3. The addition of a Tonneau cover over the bed makes a notable difference at or above highway speeds (60 mph). While adding an additional 12 lbs to the chassis, it cuts down greatly on aerodynamic drag at speed, which more than makes up for the measly mass gain. 4. Engine tuning. Went with HP tuners for this as it didn't require any replacing of the stock ECU or wiring. This allows me to set up a far more optimized spark and fuel map than what is set up from factory. Gotta keep in mind that the tune that ships with the vehicle is derived from thousands of runs in nearly all possible climates, and therefore must be able to operate within safety margins in any place worldwide that is possible for the truck to be. Since I don't live in a scorching 120 degree desert, nor do I live anywhere near the arctic circle, I can tighten up the parameters to better suit normal driving conditions for my day-to-day commute. Base map tuning and rough grooming was done on a dyno in Florida, then the fine groom tune was performed on a 150 mile street ride to confirm operations in all normal conditions. 5. Electric radiator fan conversion. stock fan runs via electrically actuated clutch off the water pump, using direct engine power to operate. Removing that fan and replacing with 2 SPAL fans and controllers moves the load from the water pump to the alternator. 6. Suspension. Although this is designed to be a 4WD vehicle, lowering the ride height of the truck does give it a better chance at cleaning up the underside airflow and dropping turbulence, or potentially diverting more air over the top of the vehicle instead of under it. Installed lowering/leveling kit that dropped 1 inch in the front and 2 in the rear, along with replacement springs. ->End result? While not quite at the level of a prius, the tacoma now averaged 20.5mpg town and 25.2 mpg highway (at 65 mph), which is a far cry from the 15/19 that it was originally rated for. I would assume with removal of the 4wd system and transmission changeover to manual that there is some mpg to be gained there as well, but I didn't want to completely tear apart a properly working daily just to have it down for months at a time.
I think the most important thing about this was your engine tuning. From lowering mine, getting new tires, changing intake/exhaust, removing roof-rack and bars, I've kept track of my mileage like a hawk, and it's never changed within margin of error (not even +/- 1mpg) I've been preping mine for tuning and feel like it should've been my priority by now lmao. 17.5mpg (majority city and very "spirited" driving) average has been brutal sucking down $5/gl premium. Oh you thought I had a truck too? No it's a 19yr old turbo subaru XD
Couple of things to mention. 1. The tonneau cover makes no difference. (Reference; MythBusters season 4 episode 26) If you have tools and largeish objects in the bed, then It might make a difference having a cover, but negligible considering the truck is an aerodynamic brick. And actually, using a cargo net will actually improve fuel economy believe it or not. 2. Removing rotating mass (i.e. from the drivetrain) only decreases the energy required to get the mass turning up to speed and not keep the mass turning at that speed (In a perfect scenario with no friction a light driveshaft would be no different to a heavy driveshaft if there was no change in speed). It's the removing mass from the vehicle part that gets you the better fuel economy rather than removing mass from the drivetrain itself. And actually the biggest thing you did to the driveshaft was deleting the carrier bearing and extra U joint. Removing that friction helped more than making the driveshafts lighter, but, you're sill reducing the weight of the vehicle overall which still all adds up. Wheels and tires are a big part of the mass of the vehicle that you are removing. Unless there's some weird physics that has to with one point at the edge of tire being accelerated to twice the speed of the vehicle and back to 0 each revolution, then I just believe that it is the mass of the vehicle as a whole rather than where you remove the mass from. Because 40lbs off the tires vs 40lbs off the chassis is still the same weight reduction. 3. Rolling resistance of the tires plays a huge role (pun intended) when it comes to fuel milage compared to weight reduction since RR is continuously trying to slow you down (just like wind resistance). Also, although aluminum is more dense than rubber I would recommend getting slightly larger wheels (like 18"s, 19"s, or 20"s) with a smaller sidewall while keeping the tire diameter the same. The rubber sidewalls are going to be heavier than the extra mass of the wheels you'll be adding since they have to use more rubber material to hold up the weight of the vehicle. 4. The Manual trans will only benefit you on the highway, in the cities, and in traffic jams, fuel economy is negligible and a pain in the butt to drive (Up side is almost no one can steal your truck). Urban areas aren't too bad to drive in. 5. Converting from 4x4 to 4x2 will significantly improve your fuel economy. First, of all you're removing all the extra weight. Secondly, you're removing all the friction in the CVs and front diff, yes the spider gears still spin even when in 2WD (unless you installed manual locking hubs). Thirdly, (Is that even a word? Thirdly? Anyway, I'm using it) changing the trans from one with a transfer case to one without (changing 4x4 to 4x2 trans) also reduces the friction from spinning the chains in the T-case and dragging that gear oil all that distance to keep the output shaft lubricated. Something I thought of, adding skid plates. Yes it's adding weight (they make aluminum skids) but it's also helping the airflow underneath. Which at highway speed is more noticeable than worrying about a couple of pounds. I forget which formula but resistance increases by velocity squared while moving mass is just a multiplier (without the squared part). I don't know what driving you do more city or highway so I couldn't say if it will benefit you, but it you do a lot of highway driving it might actually help out a little bit. And every little bit adds up. Here's something crazy, for reference I have an 07 taco, 4x4, extended cab, 6ft bed, one my rear U joints exploded on a trip because it wasn't greaseable (I didn't notice any signs of wear when I checked it last, 5 months prior to it exploding) and I had to limp it home in FWD and that was actually the best fuel economy I had ever gotten in the truck. I don't recommend you do that on a regular basis since the truck isn't designed to be driven like that.
@@kelvinelrick807 Alright. First thing right off the bat: thirdly is indeed a word, so own it like the master you apparently are. I never did get to watch Mythbusters growing up, so I didn't know that the bed cover theory had already been tested real-world. You know, you would think it would at least make some sort of difference somehow... ( reducing the volume of the void zone directly behind the back of the cab and/or decreasing the merge distance at the tail end of the truck... I was using rear diffuser logic to come up with that one, albeit on the topside vice underneath). Secondly, why would decreasing pumping losses on the two strokes of the 4 stroke combustion cycle I can manipulate w/o changing engine internals not have an effect on mileage? That should be reducing at least some sort of parasitic loss, unless we're thinking that there simply isn't enough exhaust volumetric/mass flow to severely tax the stock system at that reference load/speed to make any noticeable difference. Thirdly (yes, it's a word, I checked, use it proudly), in a perfect scenario with no change in elevation whatsoever, I agree that removing rotating mass in the drivetrain would only help in the acceleration department and not really affect steady-state operation. Real world, even in the relatively flat area of the southeastern swamp flats of the US eastern seaboard, we still have some reasonable hills with 2-3% grades often enough that I do believe it does make some sort of difference overall. Is it as much as I initially believed? After some consideration based on your reply, probably not as much, but I have to imagine that it's at least more than negligible. Next point: boy do I wish I could get away with removing the 4x4 system on the cheap and just run 2WD all the time. The major issue I've got is I've no idea of the scale of that operation and all it would entail. I'd have to imagine there's a traction control module that I'd need to switch out at the very least. Last thing: Luckily for me, my truck already came with the aluminum skidplate, so I guess I lucked out there.
@@jacquescrusan9500 It's kind of hard to explain the the physics behind why the bed cover doesn't do what most people expect it to do. In short, it has to do with the vertical surfaces on the back of the truck more so than the top of the box being open or closed. Like I said before using a cargo net will slightly improve your fuel economy because of the physics that's kind of hard to explain. I suppose I could write a multi paragraph explanation but I really don't want to do that. If you want to learn the science behind it I believe it season 4 episode 4 of MythBusters (Seasickness - Kill or Cure) where they go through science of figuring out why the bed cover doesn't work. I never disagreed with you on the engine tune and letting it breath better. It does after all improve fuel economy. With the driveshaft, like I said before it was removing that carrier bearing and extra U joint is what made a majority of that difference you're noticing. With the grades you have out their, the steel vs aluminum driveshaft is still going to have the same impact. With a steel one piece vs aluminum one piece. Do you have the belly pan skid plate? That will improve the airflow under your diff and trans. Or do you just have the front skid? With the 4x4 to 4x2 conversion you'll have to get 2WD front hubs / wheel bearings and maybe front spindles (the thing that connects the LCA to UCA and the wheel bearing mounts to). You'll have to look at part numbers to find out if you have to replace the spindle, it's hard to believe that you'd have to replace those. You should be able to drop the front diff without unbolting the engine. Take out the front driveshaft. If you don't want to buy a new tranny you can just leave the 4x4 trans in. Though you will still be turning that chain in the T-case if you leave the trans (just more frictional losses). Not sure how mechanically inclined you are but for me I could have that all done over a 3 day weekend, in the driveway, on jack stands (presuming I order the parts ahead of time and have them ready to go in, I also already have all the tools to do that operation). The 2WD models had 5 lug wheels so you have to find a 3rd party to get those parts. On second thought maybe they do have 6 lug 2WD stuff since they had a pre-runner option. So, I don't know, you'll have to do that research. Also, you'll have to zip tie the wires you unplug from the diff area to the crossmember so it doesn't get caught and rip out something else important.
@@memorimusic420 Well, you'd have to drive it 150k miles just to match the pollution of a factory-fresh Tesla, and driving it longer than 5 years is still better since it'll have lasted longer so no recycling pollution XD
@@Avetho 10-24k miles actually for a Tesla Model 3, and slightly more for a TMY depending on electric power grid mix. Your figures are somwhat inaccurate.
@@neutronpcxt372 The big advantage is we can bring alot of pollution over to the elctric power grid. Then we can change some regulations with huge impacts.
@@DerAua Absolutely. I'm still happy for the existence of hybrids because they enable us to remove the main downsides of ICEs(high idle power consumption, poor low power efficiency and lack of regen braking) so vehicles that aren't that useful as full EVs yet like tow trucks can still benefit from the benefits of electric.
IRL my buddy and me did comparisons of fuel economy I had a 680cc v-twin with 10:1 compression and 65hp. He had a 848cc v-twin with 12.6:1 compression and 136hp At constant 100km/h on backroads i got 5.1L/100km and he got 5.3L/100km. This gap went way apart when we started to give more throttle asking for more power My worst was 5.6L/100km on the highway with sustained 160-170km/h gps confirmed. He did a similar speed, but had short pulls that were 240km/h+ resulting in 7.8l/100km In short. If you have a low hp car/motorcycle and use almost all of its power under normal circumstances, you will basically never have bad mileage except on higher speeds for longer periods Higher hp vehicles get worse mileage cause they are ABLE to burn more fuel to make that extra power. But modern vehicles should get roughly the same mileage at the same speed.
The reason wider tyres get lower rolling resistance is because for the same sprung mass and same tyre pressure, the contact patch has the same area, but the wider tyre's contact patch is more round, its less elliptical in the direction of rotation, its shorter, so because of that there's less tyre to scrunch under the weight which means it rolls easier. Its why those thin eco tyres use such a high tyre pressure.
I’m currently pulling my hair over him not using low friction pistons🤣 Also some restriction is good for fuel economy, I found out that 110% on intake and 130% on headers and exhaust is the best compromise between power and efficency
Also turbos. A low boost turbo wil increase efficiency aswell cus it uses waste exhhoust gasses to make power and torque reducing the engine load at cruising speed thus reducing fuel use. Cus the engine has to work les hard to move the car at cruising speed
UK Top Gear ran a prius against a V8 BMW M3 in the scenario you were talking about comparing the 2. The prius was ran flat out and the M3 just had to follow, M3 was more efficient in that test, 17.2mpg for the prius, 19.4 for the M3. The conclusion... It's not what you drive but how you drive it that makes the most difference.
Yep, you can push a Corvette past 40mpg with a different tune, higher tyre pressure and very frugal acceleration, engine braking and smooth lane changes on the highway
@@Avetho Even the Car Trek lads managed to get about 27mpg from a C7 Z06, and that's with Tavarish driving. To be fast you gotta be efficient which means if you drive it right you should be able to be moderately economical... Up to a point of course.
I've not built anything in Automation in a long while. This has me thinking about seeing what mileage I could get with a similar kind of truck. But also while keeping the cost "reasonable." Hmm. Yet another fun video, thank you!
Its not really that, the contact patch is the same, its just that the contact patch of a wider tyre is more round rather than elliptical in the direction of rotation, and a contact patch that is wider rather than longer has less rolling resistance. So, actually what you said is right, a wider tyre at the same pressure has a shorter contact patch, but its that being less elliptical that makes it roll easier.
@@nomercyinc6783 A larger contact patch means more tyre is compressed under the weight of the vehicle, and that compression is a loss of energy just like how shock absorbers in a car heat up the more the suspension moves. So it follows that the smaller the contact patch, the less rolling resistance, and thus you get higher gas mileage as the most obvious direct effect. Its why land speed record vehicles use solid metal wheels with no rubber at all, since the metal barely flexes at all, the contact patch is tiny, but as a result they are only good as rollers since they have barely any friction with which to accelerate, so land speed vehicles use thrust instead of torque to go fast. Also, the longer the contact patch is, the more the rubber in the center is crunched, which is akin to a shock absorber moving further which induces more losses than a larger shock absorber moving a shorter distance, like how a wider tyre has a wider but shorter contact patch at the same pressure, ergo a wider tyre at the same pressure as a thinner tyre has lower rolling resistance. Its basic physics really, and a bit of searching inevitably ends at this conclusion which is something we've been able to confirm consistently throughout the decades with testing, its why thin eco tyres use pressures dozens of psi higher to reduce the rolling resistance further.
One big thing you could have done, is put a box on it instead of a flatbed. Mythbusters even proved that an empty box with the tailgate closed gives the best economy. That is, if the game takes that into account.
Biggest issue for trying to get the truck to Prius Economy is incredibly difficult due to the Prius having a Hybrid system, optimized bubble shape, low resistance tires, and vastly less weight. The truck needed bigger tires because they needed to match grip for the weight/power. CVT is bad because it doesn't optimize its RPMs adequately for more casual driving.
@@jordananderson2728 Also the Prius's control software forces the engine to constantly run at a higher load, then stores the extra energy into the battery. The CVT lets the engine run at whatever RPM necessary, and is way more compact compared to any conventional transmission.
One of the best fuel efficiences I have ever seen is the VW XL1 concept car that was sold to the public. It has a small 2 cylinder diesel and a electric motor. Even without the electric engine is still reaches 1.94 liters / 100 km. I wonder if you can beat that :)
Oddly enough, power is technically the increase of thermal efficiency of the burn of the fuel. That's why you are increasing economy and power at the same time.
One of the other things you could have done should have been more stroke and less bore. Could still be 5.7L technically. I would expect that to be modeled correctly in this Also solid rear rotors Just be happy they dont model oil weight and bearing clearances
I want to see a simulated Tesla model 3 EV swap. You could take several old styles of vehicles, maybe a truck, big muscle car and compact and give them an EV motor that makes about 192 kw / 416 nm.
You could do all this, or you could buy a Corvette and tune it. Or if you need a small truck, an S10 with an LS swap and a tune, or a lowered regular cab Silverado V8 with a tune.
Lupo 3L, that's all I have to say. Obligatory project to look at when looking for inspiration for fuel efficient cars. Granted VW bled money selling that thing (magnesium wheels, steering wheel, one off gearbox and engine etc) but they did everything they had to to get a Lupo below 3L/100km. You could probably still improve those. Blocking off brake ducts, radiator tape flatter floor, more air duct sealing than factory etc. None of those things should overheat in normal use in most places so blocking them off doesn't matter, but decreases drag substantially. Sadly in automation the closest thing you can do is pull the cooling slider down.
Bigger wheel doesn't have to turn as fast at a given speed, gearing down is more efficient than gearing up, bigger wheels means a more torque favoring gearing which could be why you're gaining some efficiency but I'm guessing the game assumes you're always under acceleration.
Premium fuel doesn't add fuel economy. All it does is add resistance to knock. Lower revs and more gears add fuel economy, example; diesels (when tuned well) get amazing fuel economy.
Looking at the engine it looks like an ls style engine..this can Qualify as the ls1 5.7 with lm7 truck heads and lifters.. I mention that because the LM7 has displacement on demand. At highway cruising speed, it shuts down 4 of the cylinders. I know its a game but this needs to be added
Generally if im going for efficiency. Max lower the valve springs and lower max rom to 3600 or so. And go with the cast low and low intake. Rhen calibrate your header/ exhaust /intake sizes for bwtween 125 to 150%. Then put you engine as lean as possible. Thenadd timing if needed.
CVT transmissions burn up tons of power as they are horribly built for fuel efficiency, and mainly designed for smooth shifting and on some designs, racing, where fuel efficiency is not an issue.
My truck is a 1994 GMC 5.7 liter V8 (350 ci) Sierra SLE TBI RWD 6.6 ft bed stepside, extended cab automatic transmission. In South Korea. That is what I want my project to be. 9 MPG City and 15 MPH HIGHWAY 34 Gallons capacity.
Something else you could have done is smaller brakes, which also reduces weight and drivetrain losses. Since you cut so much weight, it probably wouldn't have even hurt performance much.
Aother thing with this game, having a lower power engine that has almost no ho, but is efficient at prak torque, when under higher throttle loads you will get better gas mileage.
Similar thing can apply IRL. For example, a nonturbo 6.2 diesel in an 80s Chevy 2WD pickup can reach or exceed 30MPGh. Pushing a 4000lb brick in the 80’s, that’s impressive. Peak torque is in the mid 200 ft lbs @ 1800RPM.
ya know efficient combustion is key and it can increase power and turbos are just free re circulated unburnt fuel it is weird how making the same thing more efficient ie small un turbo carburetted to derect injected and turbocharged it saves fuel being precise and re uses any unburnt fuel but it does wear the motors out quicker if you turbo a small motor to a relatively high hp figure
Automation/BeamNG are very poor representations of reality in this regard. The biggest limitation in fuel economy/energy efficiency for automobiles, especially at higher speeds, is aerodynamic drag. Trucks and SUVs always get worse economy than a sedan because of their shape. There is no way that a brick like this truck would get that kind of fuel economy with a typical internal combustion engine at freeway speeds because it requires so much power just to push it through the air. The best thing you can do you improve your fuel economy is to slow down. I commute on the freeway daily and see people in trucks flying by at 80+mph. These are the same people who whine that their truck is getting 10mpg. It’s because they’re driving way too fast. They’d probably improve to at least 12-13 mpg just by slowing to 70mph. They’d save a ton of money in gas and all it would cost them is maybe an extra 5 minutes on their commute.
My car has a 5.7L Hemi. Have a friend who has smaller V8 in a truck. Weighs less too. He whips around like a bat outta heck. 12 MPG My engine is modified for more power and the fuel saving mode has been disabled. But I drive the limit 96% of the time. I get 19 MPG according to the onboard computer, but I bet it's more like 21 as I get those numbers doing the math at the pump.
Alot of this has to do with engine rpm's. The faster you spin an engine, the more air you are taking in to maintain that speed, and the more gas the engine needs. Realistically, most cars shift into overdrive around 45mph. Any speed over that you use more gas. A rough calculation is about 4x as much fuel for every 1000rpm. I daily drove my v-8 50 miles 6 days a week and I could average 30mpg by slowing down 5mph in the 75 zone to 70 mph. Aero does matter, but it mostly incidental until you exceed 60mph. Alot of the 80's bricks actually had less aerodynamic then a similar designed modern equivalent. Not due to superior aero, but a smaller frontal area and overall smaller size. My v-8 was an 87 tbird, which is nearly as aerodynamic as a Prius. I could cruise all day long at 75mph without exceeding 1600 engine rpm. Slowing down to 60-65 mph was 1200-1400rpm and 55mph was just under 1200 rpm. If I consistently stuck to 55mph, I touched on 35mpg for full tanks of gas a few times, and I equate that almost completely to a lower engine speed. As an example, my father bought a 2011 first, a small 4 cylinder econo box. I took it on a few road trips, and lower speeds (55-65mph) I could average 40-50mpg. Once you hit 75 mph, it was spinning at over 4k and would only hit 32mpg or so. I ended up rarely driving it long distances, because I could hit 30 mph with my v-8 thunderbird and be much more comfortable and drive my own car, using barely any more gas.
Your software is defective. It is working off of a whole lot of wrong premises. It has been proven by the Big 3 that you can increase the power output and increase fuel efficiency, and increasing exhaust flow was critical to this, because restricting the exhaust forces the engine to lose power, simply because with back pressure, the engine is working to push the exhaust out, and that work, like all work, is power, and therefore, power lost.
Doing something like this in the real world turns up some interesting revelations. For context, the vehicle in question is a 2007 Toyota Tacoma, 4.0l 1GR-FE V6 mated to 5 speed auto, 4WD, crew cab, long box. Having made no changes internally to the engine, I focused the majority of my efforts on removing as many design compromises while retaining as much stock equipment as possible. Here's how I approached it:
1. Remove any stock restrictions to the engine's ability to breath in and out effectively. This leads to a K&N cold air intake and a URD long-tube header exhaust system, which allows for less restriction in and out, but also comes with the added benefit of removing mass from the chassis, in turn making the vehicle lighter overall. While it may not be significant in scale when compared to the overall mass of the vehicle, I like to take the approach of 'ounces make pounds', and the sum is greater than the individual parts.
2. Remove unnecessary mass from the drivetrain, and thus lower the parasitic drag created by the excess mass. This was achieved by changing out 3 things: driveshafts, rims, and tires. The driveshafts were changed over from the stock multi-piece shafts to one-piece aluminum shafts(savings of 4 lbs for rear shaft and 1.3 lbs front), both reducing the overall mass of the shafts front and rear, and also shortening the diameter of the shaft, meaning that the centrifugal force of spinning the shaft was less at any given rpm because the radius was shorter (1lb at 1ft vs 1lb at 2ft...). I took this same approach with the rims. While the stock rims are truly decent heavier-duty aluminum rims, they are still heavy. I replaced those with a set of Enkei RPT-1 rims that came in the same dimensions (width, diameter and offset) as the stock versions, but were more than 10 lbs lighter than the stock ones, meaning a total loss of about 40 lbs of rotating mass. The tires I chose were a set of Michelin Primacy's in identical configuration as the stock tires, but they too were lighter than the stock Michelin's coming in at 31 lbs a piece instead of 38, so another 28 lbs of rotating mass lost, but because the tire's mass is concentrated at the furthest point from the center of rotation, they produce the greatest effect overall. Total drivetrain mass lost is ~ 74 lbs total.
3. The addition of a Tonneau cover over the bed makes a notable difference at or above highway speeds (60 mph). While adding an additional 12 lbs to the chassis, it cuts down greatly on aerodynamic drag at speed, which more than makes up for the measly mass gain.
4. Engine tuning. Went with HP tuners for this as it didn't require any replacing of the stock ECU or wiring. This allows me to set up a far more optimized spark and fuel map than what is set up from factory. Gotta keep in mind that the tune that ships with the vehicle is derived from thousands of runs in nearly all possible climates, and therefore must be able to operate within safety margins in any place worldwide that is possible for the truck to be. Since I don't live in a scorching 120 degree desert, nor do I live anywhere near the arctic circle, I can tighten up the parameters to better suit normal driving conditions for my day-to-day commute. Base map tuning and rough grooming was done on a dyno in Florida, then the fine groom tune was performed on a 150 mile street ride to confirm operations in all normal conditions.
5. Electric radiator fan conversion. stock fan runs via electrically actuated clutch off the water pump, using direct engine power to operate. Removing that fan and replacing with 2 SPAL fans and controllers moves the load from the water pump to the alternator.
6. Suspension. Although this is designed to be a 4WD vehicle, lowering the ride height of the truck does give it a better chance at cleaning up the underside airflow and dropping turbulence, or potentially diverting more air over the top of the vehicle instead of under it. Installed lowering/leveling kit that dropped 1 inch in the front and 2 in the rear, along with replacement springs.
->End result? While not quite at the level of a prius, the tacoma now averaged 20.5mpg town and 25.2 mpg highway (at 65 mph), which is a far cry from the 15/19 that it was originally rated for. I would assume with removal of the 4wd system and transmission changeover to manual that there is some mpg to be gained there as well, but I didn't want to completely tear apart a properly working daily just to have it down for months at a time.
I think the most important thing about this was your engine tuning.
From lowering mine, getting new tires, changing intake/exhaust, removing roof-rack and bars, I've kept track of my mileage like a hawk, and it's never changed within margin of error (not even +/- 1mpg)
I've been preping mine for tuning and feel like it should've been my priority by now lmao. 17.5mpg (majority city and very "spirited" driving) average has been brutal sucking down $5/gl premium.
Oh you thought I had a truck too? No it's a 19yr old turbo subaru XD
Couple of things to mention.
1. The tonneau cover makes no difference. (Reference; MythBusters season 4 episode 26) If you have tools and largeish objects in the bed, then It might make a difference having a cover, but negligible considering the truck is an aerodynamic brick. And actually, using a cargo net will actually improve fuel economy believe it or not.
2. Removing rotating mass (i.e. from the drivetrain) only decreases the energy required to get the mass turning up to speed and not keep the mass turning at that speed (In a perfect scenario with no friction a light driveshaft would be no different to a heavy driveshaft if there was no change in speed). It's the removing mass from the vehicle part that gets you the better fuel economy rather than removing mass from the drivetrain itself. And actually the biggest thing you did to the driveshaft was deleting the carrier bearing and extra U joint. Removing that friction helped more than making the driveshafts lighter, but, you're sill reducing the weight of the vehicle overall which still all adds up. Wheels and tires are a big part of the mass of the vehicle that you are removing. Unless there's some weird physics that has to with one point at the edge of tire being accelerated to twice the speed of the vehicle and back to 0 each revolution, then I just believe that it is the mass of the vehicle as a whole rather than where you remove the mass from. Because 40lbs off the tires vs 40lbs off the chassis is still the same weight reduction.
3. Rolling resistance of the tires plays a huge role (pun intended) when it comes to fuel milage compared to weight reduction since RR is continuously trying to slow you down (just like wind resistance). Also, although aluminum is more dense than rubber I would recommend getting slightly larger wheels (like 18"s, 19"s, or 20"s) with a smaller sidewall while keeping the tire diameter the same. The rubber sidewalls are going to be heavier than the extra mass of the wheels you'll be adding since they have to use more rubber material to hold up the weight of the vehicle.
4. The Manual trans will only benefit you on the highway, in the cities, and in traffic jams, fuel economy is negligible and a pain in the butt to drive (Up side is almost no one can steal your truck). Urban areas aren't too bad to drive in.
5. Converting from 4x4 to 4x2 will significantly improve your fuel economy. First, of all you're removing all the extra weight. Secondly, you're removing all the friction in the CVs and front diff, yes the spider gears still spin even when in 2WD (unless you installed manual locking hubs). Thirdly, (Is that even a word? Thirdly? Anyway, I'm using it) changing the trans from one with a transfer case to one without (changing 4x4 to 4x2 trans) also reduces the friction from spinning the chains in the T-case and dragging that gear oil all that distance to keep the output shaft lubricated.
Something I thought of, adding skid plates. Yes it's adding weight (they make aluminum skids) but it's also helping the airflow underneath. Which at highway speed is more noticeable than worrying about a couple of pounds. I forget which formula but resistance increases by velocity squared while moving mass is just a multiplier (without the squared part). I don't know what driving you do more city or highway so I couldn't say if it will benefit you, but it you do a lot of highway driving it might actually help out a little bit. And every little bit adds up.
Here's something crazy, for reference I have an 07 taco, 4x4, extended cab, 6ft bed, one my rear U joints exploded on a trip because it wasn't greaseable (I didn't notice any signs of wear when I checked it last, 5 months prior to it exploding) and I had to limp it home in FWD and that was actually the best fuel economy I had ever gotten in the truck. I don't recommend you do that on a regular basis since the truck isn't designed to be driven like that.
@@kelvinelrick807 Alright. First thing right off the bat: thirdly is indeed a word, so own it like the master you apparently are.
I never did get to watch Mythbusters growing up, so I didn't know that the bed cover theory had already been tested real-world. You know, you would think it would at least make some sort of difference somehow... ( reducing the volume of the void zone directly behind the back of the cab and/or decreasing the merge distance at the tail end of the truck... I was using rear diffuser logic to come up with that one, albeit on the topside vice underneath).
Secondly, why would decreasing pumping losses on the two strokes of the 4 stroke combustion cycle I can manipulate w/o changing engine internals not have an effect on mileage? That should be reducing at least some sort of parasitic loss, unless we're thinking that there simply isn't enough exhaust volumetric/mass flow to severely tax the stock system at that reference load/speed to make any noticeable difference.
Thirdly (yes, it's a word, I checked, use it proudly), in a perfect scenario with no change in elevation whatsoever, I agree that removing rotating mass in the drivetrain would only help in the acceleration department and not really affect steady-state operation. Real world, even in the relatively flat area of the southeastern swamp flats of the US eastern seaboard, we still have some reasonable hills with 2-3% grades often enough that I do believe it does make some sort of difference overall. Is it as much as I initially believed? After some consideration based on your reply, probably not as much, but I have to imagine that it's at least more than negligible.
Next point: boy do I wish I could get away with removing the 4x4 system on the cheap and just run 2WD all the time. The major issue I've got is I've no idea of the scale of that operation and all it would entail. I'd have to imagine there's a traction control module that I'd need to switch out at the very least.
Last thing: Luckily for me, my truck already came with the aluminum skidplate, so I guess I lucked out there.
@@jacquescrusan9500 It's kind of hard to explain the the physics behind why the bed cover doesn't do what most people expect it to do. In short, it has to do with the vertical surfaces on the back of the truck more so than the top of the box being open or closed. Like I said before using a cargo net will slightly improve your fuel economy because of the physics that's kind of hard to explain. I suppose I could write a multi paragraph explanation but I really don't want to do that. If you want to learn the science behind it I believe it season 4 episode 4 of MythBusters (Seasickness - Kill or Cure) where they go through science of figuring out why the bed cover doesn't work.
I never disagreed with you on the engine tune and letting it breath better. It does after all improve fuel economy.
With the driveshaft, like I said before it was removing that carrier bearing and extra U joint is what made a majority of that difference you're noticing. With the grades you have out their, the steel vs aluminum driveshaft is still going to have the same impact. With a steel one piece vs aluminum one piece.
Do you have the belly pan skid plate? That will improve the airflow under your diff and trans. Or do you just have the front skid?
With the 4x4 to 4x2 conversion you'll have to get 2WD front hubs / wheel bearings and maybe front spindles (the thing that connects the LCA to UCA and the wheel bearing mounts to). You'll have to look at part numbers to find out if you have to replace the spindle, it's hard to believe that you'd have to replace those. You should be able to drop the front diff without unbolting the engine. Take out the front driveshaft. If you don't want to buy a new tranny you can just leave the 4x4 trans in. Though you will still be turning that chain in the T-case if you leave the trans (just more frictional losses). Not sure how mechanically inclined you are but for me I could have that all done over a 3 day weekend, in the driveway, on jack stands (presuming I order the parts ahead of time and have them ready to go in, I also already have all the tools to do that operation). The 2WD models had 5 lug wheels so you have to find a 3rd party to get those parts. On second thought maybe they do have 6 lug 2WD stuff since they had a pre-runner option. So, I don't know, you'll have to do that research.
Also, you'll have to zip tie the wires you unplug from the diff area to the crossmember so it doesn't get caught and rip out something else important.
@@tro_b0t I think your lead foot might be the problem here. You do have a turbo charged Subaru after all. I do have that same problem with mine too.
Can a prius be as powerful as a V8 truck? Real questions here
With turbos probably
Easily 😂
With enough turbo
@@automotivefluxwould be fun to make a Prius, try to tow as much as a truck tho
@@automotiveflux what if it was a na hybrid with equal parts engine hp and electric motor hp
See, we don’t all need a Tesla. We just need an old truck with 100k in engine work.
Or an old truck with 500K kilometers 😂 already used more than any modern EV
@@memorimusic420 Well, you'd have to drive it 150k miles just to match the pollution of a factory-fresh Tesla, and driving it longer than 5 years is still better since it'll have lasted longer so no recycling pollution XD
@@Avetho 10-24k miles actually for a Tesla Model 3, and slightly more for a TMY depending on electric power grid mix.
Your figures are somwhat inaccurate.
@@neutronpcxt372 The big advantage is we can bring alot of pollution over to the elctric power grid. Then we can change some regulations with huge impacts.
@@DerAua Absolutely.
I'm still happy for the existence of hybrids because they enable us to remove the main downsides of ICEs(high idle power consumption, poor low power efficiency and lack of regen braking) so vehicles that aren't that useful as full EVs yet like tow trucks can still benefit from the benefits of electric.
IRL my buddy and me did comparisons of fuel economy
I had a 680cc v-twin with 10:1 compression and 65hp.
He had a 848cc v-twin with 12.6:1 compression and 136hp
At constant 100km/h on backroads i got 5.1L/100km and he got 5.3L/100km. This gap went way apart when we started to give more throttle asking for more power
My worst was 5.6L/100km on the highway with sustained 160-170km/h gps confirmed. He did a similar speed, but had short pulls that were 240km/h+ resulting in 7.8l/100km
In short. If you have a low hp car/motorcycle and use almost all of its power under normal circumstances, you will basically never have bad mileage except on higher speeds for longer periods
Higher hp vehicles get worse mileage cause they are ABLE to burn more fuel to make that extra power. But modern vehicles should get roughly the same mileage at the same speed.
The reason wider tyres get lower rolling resistance is because for the same sprung mass and same tyre pressure, the contact patch has the same area, but the wider tyre's contact patch is more round, its less elliptical in the direction of rotation, its shorter, so because of that there's less tyre to scrunch under the weight which means it rolls easier. Its why those thin eco tyres use such a high tyre pressure.
I’m currently pulling my hair over him not using low friction pistons🤣
Also some restriction is good for fuel economy, I found out that 110% on intake and 130% on headers and exhaust is the best compromise between power and efficency
SAME
Also turbos. A low boost turbo wil increase efficiency aswell cus it uses waste exhhoust gasses to make power and torque reducing the engine load at cruising speed thus reducing fuel use. Cus the engine has to work les hard to move the car at cruising speed
UK Top Gear ran a prius against a V8 BMW M3 in the scenario you were talking about comparing the 2. The prius was ran flat out and the M3 just had to follow, M3 was more efficient in that test, 17.2mpg for the prius, 19.4 for the M3.
The conclusion... It's not what you drive but how you drive it that makes the most difference.
Yep, you can push a Corvette past 40mpg with a different tune, higher tyre pressure and very frugal acceleration, engine braking and smooth lane changes on the highway
@@Avetho Even the Car Trek lads managed to get about 27mpg from a C7 Z06, and that's with Tavarish driving. To be fast you gotta be efficient which means if you drive it right you should be able to be moderately economical... Up to a point of course.
I've not built anything in Automation in a long while. This has me thinking about seeing what mileage I could get with a similar kind of truck. But also while keeping the cost "reasonable." Hmm.
Yet another fun video, thank you!
Same.
You lost me at "reasonable"
Given the same air pressure a wider tire actually has a shorter contact patch
Shorter but wider = same overall size
Its not really that, the contact patch is the same, its just that the contact patch of a wider tyre is more round rather than elliptical in the direction of rotation, and a contact patch that is wider rather than longer has less rolling resistance. So, actually what you said is right, a wider tyre at the same pressure has a shorter contact patch, but its that being less elliptical that makes it roll easier.
contact patch doesnt change gas mileage. wtf logic is that
@@nomercyinc6783 A larger contact patch means more tyre is compressed under the weight of the vehicle, and that compression is a loss of energy just like how shock absorbers in a car heat up the more the suspension moves. So it follows that the smaller the contact patch, the less rolling resistance, and thus you get higher gas mileage as the most obvious direct effect. Its why land speed record vehicles use solid metal wheels with no rubber at all, since the metal barely flexes at all, the contact patch is tiny, but as a result they are only good as rollers since they have barely any friction with which to accelerate, so land speed vehicles use thrust instead of torque to go fast. Also, the longer the contact patch is, the more the rubber in the center is crunched, which is akin to a shock absorber moving further which induces more losses than a larger shock absorber moving a shorter distance, like how a wider tyre has a wider but shorter contact patch at the same pressure, ergo a wider tyre at the same pressure as a thinner tyre has lower rolling resistance. Its basic physics really, and a bit of searching inevitably ends at this conclusion which is something we've been able to confirm consistently throughout the decades with testing, its why thin eco tyres use pressures dozens of psi higher to reduce the rolling resistance further.
It does; a tyre's contact patch factors into rolling resistance, which affects efficiency.
One big thing you could have done, is put a box on it instead of a flatbed. Mythbusters even proved that an empty box with the tailgate closed gives the best economy. That is, if the game takes that into account.
It doesn't consider that
Biggest issue for trying to get the truck to Prius Economy is incredibly difficult due to the Prius having a Hybrid system, optimized bubble shape, low resistance tires, and vastly less weight.
The truck needed bigger tires because they needed to match grip for the weight/power.
CVT is bad because it doesn't optimize its RPMs adequately for more casual driving.
IRL Prius has a CVT though.
@@jordananderson2728 Half asleep when I typed. lol. Meant that CVT estimate would be bad because it's not factoring as if driving casually.
@@the01slayer Ahhh, gotcha. That makes more sense (:
@@jordananderson2728 Also the Prius's control software forces the engine to constantly run at a higher load, then stores the extra energy into the battery. The CVT lets the engine run at whatever RPM necessary, and is way more compact compared to any conventional transmission.
One of the best fuel efficiences I have ever seen is the VW XL1 concept car that was sold to the public. It has a small 2 cylinder diesel and a electric motor. Even without the electric engine is still reaches 1.94 liters / 100 km. I wonder if you can beat that :)
Can I make a honda d16 but as a v8 with vtec and compare it to the honda k24 v8 (aka k48 vs d32)
i think the economy improving due to increased tire width might be some quality spam glitching
Repeat this experiment again but with a V16
Oddly enough, power is technically the increase of thermal efficiency of the burn of the fuel. That's why you are increasing economy and power at the same time.
Might be the change in pressure for the bigger tires making it fuel efficient?
One of the other things you could have done should have been more stroke and less bore. Could still be 5.7L technically. I would expect that to be modeled correctly in this
Also solid rear rotors
Just be happy they dont model oil weight and bearing clearances
More stroke is less efficient.
Not a truck guy but holy crap this thing looks sick
btw the test you mention on top gear is when the 2008 economy crash and it was a bmw m5 v8. the prius did 17.4 mpg and the bwm does 19.4 mpg i think.
I want to see a simulated Tesla model 3 EV swap. You could take several old styles of vehicles, maybe a truck, big muscle car and compact and give them an EV motor that makes about 192 kw / 416 nm.
You could do all this, or you could buy a Corvette and tune it. Or if you need a small truck, an S10 with an LS swap and a tune, or a lowered regular cab Silverado V8 with a tune.
Lupo 3L, that's all I have to say. Obligatory project to look at when looking for inspiration for fuel efficient cars. Granted VW bled money selling that thing (magnesium wheels, steering wheel, one off gearbox and engine etc) but they did everything they had to to get a Lupo below 3L/100km. You could probably still improve those. Blocking off brake ducts, radiator tape flatter floor, more air duct sealing than factory etc. None of those things should overheat in normal use in most places so blocking them off doesn't matter, but decreases drag substantially. Sadly in automation the closest thing you can do is pull the cooling slider down.
The VW XL1 is even better in the fuel economy department
Bigger wheel doesn't have to turn as fast at a given speed, gearing down is more efficient than gearing up, bigger wheels means a more torque favoring gearing which could be why you're gaining some efficiency but I'm guessing the game assumes you're always under acceleration.
Premium fuel doesn't add fuel economy. All it does is add resistance to knock.
Lower revs and more gears add fuel economy, example; diesels (when tuned well) get amazing fuel economy.
Looking at the engine it looks like an ls style engine..this can Qualify as the ls1 5.7 with lm7 truck heads and lifters.. I mention that because the LM7 has displacement on demand. At highway cruising speed, it shuts down 4 of the cylinders.
I know its a game but this needs to be added
Generally if im going for efficiency. Max lower the valve springs and lower max rom to 3600 or so. And go with the cast low and low intake. Rhen calibrate your header/ exhaust /intake sizes for bwtween 125 to 150%. Then put you engine as lean as possible. Thenadd timing if needed.
If you can make a V8 pickup truck as efficient as a Prius, you can make a flatplane crank V8 supercar as fuel-efficient as a 4-cylinder Camry.
CVT transmissions burn up tons of power as they are horribly built for fuel efficiency, and mainly designed for smooth shifting and on some designs, racing, where fuel efficiency is not an issue.
My truck is a 1994 GMC 5.7 liter V8 (350 ci) Sierra SLE TBI RWD 6.6 ft bed stepside, extended cab automatic transmission.
In South Korea.
That is what I want my project to be.
9 MPG City and 15 MPH HIGHWAY
34 Gallons capacity.
Something else you could have done is smaller brakes, which also reduces weight and drivetrain losses. Since you cut so much weight, it probably wouldn't have even hurt performance much.
Would've been cool to see what it did at realistic american highway speeds (120-130kph) and what it would do while towing various loads!
Aother thing with this game, having a lower power engine that has almost no ho, but is efficient at prak torque, when under higher throttle loads you will get better gas mileage.
Similar thing can apply IRL. For example, a nonturbo 6.2 diesel in an 80s Chevy 2WD pickup can reach or exceed 30MPGh. Pushing a 4000lb brick in the 80’s, that’s impressive. Peak torque is in the mid 200 ft lbs @ 1800RPM.
My brain is struggling with the lack of freedom units
Big truck vs a prius- not surprised by the result- stick a v8 in a prius and you might have a different story
where did you get the engine mods with the names and stuff?
I have a 2012 f150 4x4 3.5 twin turbo eco Bost and get 20mpg and a max of 30mpg it's not bad on fuel economy. I don't miss the $100 fill ups though.
What’s stopping you from using a larger displacement engine with different gear ratios?
ya know efficient combustion is key and it can increase power and turbos are just free re circulated unburnt fuel it is weird how making the same thing more efficient ie small un turbo carburetted to derect injected and turbocharged it saves fuel being precise and re uses any unburnt fuel but it does wear the motors out quicker if you turbo a small motor to a relatively high hp figure
Real question is can you make a V16 as fuel efficient as a Geo Metro?
Why not? GM made a 6.2 V8 in 1982 that got 31mpg on the highway. Anything's possible
im a high performance old school 460 351 454 engine kinda guy but i actually like this fuel economy engine
probably went way over board only due to your "race" gearing and fast rear diff
Can you try this with a 16 piston 20L engine with at least 1 turbo
for my Americans the v8 stock is getting a little over 12 mpg and the prius is at about 50.
3:10 how do you get that gearing setup menu?
Beta version of the game, you can access it in the steam settings
It was a Prius vs an M3, the M3 going 100mph and the Prius just having to keep up.
Lowering the body without putting an under sheath and air dam kit does not improve fuel mileage whatsoever.
After i finish building my ecu(speeduino) and my custom tcu im gonna try hyper mile it
Using the "best parts" like racing intake and stuff doesn't translate to best fuel economy as other peoplensaid. Also LOW FRICTION PISTONS
whats the mod?
Discs get worse mileage than drums. They're constantly creating drag. Drums do not.
Well. Definitely if you make it completely road illegal
Fords 6.7 Liter Powerstroke is more efficient getting 16-17 mpg than my 5.3 Tahoe with flex fuel getting 10-12mpg
Light and fuel efficient... is it 24 LeMans racing truck???
Mmmmm, malase era goodness
Turbo it eco boost it turbos add efficiency
What game is this btw?
It's two games, Automation The Car Company Tycoon Game and BeamNG drive
Automation/BeamNG are very poor representations of reality in this regard. The biggest limitation in fuel economy/energy efficiency for automobiles, especially at higher speeds, is aerodynamic drag. Trucks and SUVs always get worse economy than a sedan because of their shape. There is no way that a brick like this truck would get that kind of fuel economy with a typical internal combustion engine at freeway speeds because it requires so much power just to push it through the air.
The best thing you can do you improve your fuel economy is to slow down. I commute on the freeway daily and see people in trucks flying by at 80+mph. These are the same people who whine that their truck is getting 10mpg. It’s because they’re driving way too fast. They’d probably improve to at least 12-13 mpg just by slowing to 70mph. They’d save a ton of money in gas and all it would cost them is maybe an extra 5 minutes on their commute.
My car has a 5.7L Hemi.
Have a friend who has smaller V8 in a truck. Weighs less too.
He whips around like a bat outta heck. 12 MPG
My engine is modified for more power and the fuel saving mode has been disabled.
But I drive the limit 96% of the time.
I get 19 MPG according to the onboard computer, but I bet it's more like 21 as I get those numbers doing the math at the pump.
Alot of this has to do with engine rpm's. The faster you spin an engine, the more air you are taking in to maintain that speed, and the more gas the engine needs.
Realistically, most cars shift into overdrive around 45mph. Any speed over that you use more gas. A rough calculation is about 4x as much fuel for every 1000rpm.
I daily drove my v-8 50 miles 6 days a week and I could average 30mpg by slowing down 5mph in the 75 zone to 70 mph.
Aero does matter, but it mostly incidental until you exceed 60mph. Alot of the 80's bricks actually had less aerodynamic then a similar designed modern equivalent. Not due to superior aero, but a smaller frontal area and overall smaller size.
My v-8 was an 87 tbird, which is nearly as aerodynamic as a Prius. I could cruise all day long at 75mph without exceeding 1600 engine rpm. Slowing down to 60-65 mph was 1200-1400rpm and 55mph was just under 1200 rpm. If I consistently stuck to 55mph, I touched on 35mpg for full tanks of gas a few times, and I equate that almost completely to a lower engine speed.
As an example, my father bought a 2011 first, a small 4 cylinder econo box. I took it on a few road trips, and lower speeds (55-65mph) I could average 40-50mpg. Once you hit 75 mph, it was spinning at over 4k and would only hit 32mpg or so.
I ended up rarely driving it long distances, because I could hit 30 mph with my v-8 thunderbird and be much more comfortable and drive my own car, using barely any more gas.
A lo boost inline 6 woud be a better all-rounder.
I would of dropped the v8 to 4L added turbos
can i buy one
How is a prius that efficient
Why not just use real numbers
It was a bmw m5 not a porsche
me with a 1000 hp engine doing 30%
Your software is defective.
It is working off of a whole lot of wrong premises.
It has been proven by the Big 3 that you can increase the power output and increase fuel efficiency, and increasing exhaust flow was critical to this, because restricting the exhaust forces the engine to lose power, simply because with back pressure, the engine is working to push the exhaust out, and that work, like all work, is power, and therefore, power lost.
dude you really need to learn about engine
almost gone mad while watching
What specifically do I need to learn about engines?
@@automotiveflux like high revving is bad for fuel efficiency
and some more didn't bother to rewatch again
>L/100km
The metric system and it's consequences has been a disaster for the human race
As a metric user, I think kilometers per liter would be infinitely better and easier to understand.
Cool (pin or gay)
I wish you would use imperial measurements instead