- 301
- Canada
- moosethemooche78
[Edit - The following results came from tests run under version 1.42 BoP settings. The 1.43 update introduced substantial changes to the BoP settings for many Gr.4 cars. These results may not reflect the current performance under the new settings.]
I wanted to see how the Gr.4 cars consume fuel under different fuel-saving strategies when the Balance of Performance (BoP) tuning typically used in Sport mode races were applied. I ran some tests on all of the cars in the category to find out.
I tested the cars using 3 different fuel-saving strategies -- all based on short-shifting:
Where did these results come from? For each of the cars in the Gr.4 category and each fuel-saving strategy, I ran a custom race at
at the Lago Maggiore - Center circuit with a fuel multiplier of 25x, simply driving the car until it ran out of fuel, recording the time and distance traveled (according to the odometer).
The detailed data, along with separate charts for each fuel-saving strategy, can be found in this spreadsheet.
Comments and observations:
I wanted to see how the Gr.4 cars consume fuel under different fuel-saving strategies when the Balance of Performance (BoP) tuning typically used in Sport mode races were applied. I ran some tests on all of the cars in the category to find out.
I tested the cars using 3 different fuel-saving strategies -- all based on short-shifting:
- R100 - Shifting gears at 100% of the rev bar. This is essentially the 'no fuel saving' baseline.
- R50 - Shifting gears when engine reaches 50% of the rev bar. This would be considered a moderate fuel saving measure.
- R0 - Shifting gears just as engine is about to reach start showing up on the rev bar -- that is, the 0% option. This is an extreme fuel-saving measure.
Where did these results come from? For each of the cars in the Gr.4 category and each fuel-saving strategy, I ran a custom race at
at the Lago Maggiore - Center circuit with a fuel multiplier of 25x, simply driving the car until it ran out of fuel, recording the time and distance traveled (according to the odometer).
The detailed data, along with separate charts for each fuel-saving strategy, can be found in this spreadsheet.
Comments and observations:
- The chart shows the time and distance until the car ran out of fuel, along with a trend line. Data points to the right of the line indicate that the car covered more distance for the time -- that is, it was faster than average. Data points to the left indicate cars that were slower than average. You'll notice that as the fuel-saving measure became more extreme (eg. R0), the data points skewed further to the left, indicating that they were slower.
- Disclaimer: I'm a mediocre mid-B DR driver using a controller. I'm not especially fast, smooth, or consistent in my driving. The results reflect how I drive the car. Your mileage may vary.
- Why Lago Maggiore - Center? It is a short track. That is good because it means I didn't have to drive the car for long after the fuel ran out to get to the pit stop to refuel and finish the race. It also has two long acceleration zones, which cause the cars to use a lot of fuel.
- Some of the cars are known to perform better under short shifting than revving them to 100% (eg. McLaren 650s). I didn't let this affect how I ran the tests. I still revved them to 100% for the R100 tests, and 50% for the R50 ones.
- If you look at the spreadsheet, you will see that I tried to additional strategies for the BMW M4 -- named RPM6000 and RPM5500 -- where I shift gears at even lower RPMs than the R0 strategy. There was no helping that car. Poor thing.
Last edited:
