Lamborghini Readout... Kilometres per Litre?

[counter345]

Look at the readout above the gear. I never knew this kind of thing was included.

 

[CAM]

This isn't from GT5, is it? Probably should be in the Automotive forum, if it's not. It says GT5 in the video title but you can't see the steering wheel or anything. And isn't that basically just like miles per gallon in Europe?

 

[RocZX]

This isn't from GT5, is it? Probably should be in the Automotive forum, if it's not. It says GT5 in the video title but you can't see the steering wheel or anything. And isn't that basically just like miles per gallon in Europe?

The video is from GT5.

 

[CAM]

Hmm, interesting. I figured you'd be able to see the steering wheel or something like that. But I don't see what is so interesting about it, lots of cars in GT5 have metric readouts.

 

[SkateNj]

But i guess he didnt know some cars tell you how many MPG's/KPL's your getting

 

[RocZX]

I don't think he talking about it being metric readings but the point they put in fuel consumption .

 

[counter345]

But i guess he didnt know some cars tell you how many MPG's/KPL's your getting

No, I didn't at all, a quick search with "kilometres litres" and I didn't find anything on it.

 

[CAM]

I see what you're saying, I didn't see the objective of the question at first. Should be helpful for planning out enduros then .

 

[Hayden]

2.9 km/l @ 330kph... I'm sold

 

[Kryz11]

What if you drive normally, 65 MPH at top gear?

 

[R.S]

It can't be kilometers per litre specifically, is it not going the wrong way??
Although I wouldn't argue that ingame it certainly does look like km over litre.
More Like litres per 10km. Considering the lp560 does (11 odd litre/100km) at highway speeds. Then though its still far too low.

Please enlighten.

 

[Sier_Pinski]

There is a second car in GT5 that has MPG readouts on its interface.



People around this forum were curious over the Mazda 787B's mysterious dashboard numbers to the left of the steering wheel, particularly the top left one. I'm guessing that it's an instant fuel economy reader. You'll notice in the video that the number lowers whenever the car accelerates (an indication of poor gas mileage), and then goes up to higher numbers (usually 99) whenever the car decelerates and brakes (where fuel is consumed the least).

 

[Corpsey]

It can't be kilometers per litre specifically, is it not going the wrong way??
Although I wouldn't argue that ingame it certainly does look like km over litre.
More Like litres per 10km. Considering the lp560 does (11 odd litre/100km) at highway speeds. Then though its still far too low.

Please enlighten.

You have to remember, he's really hitting the gas in that video. Highway speeds is usually in low rpm in the proper gear - if he held it steady I'm sure at 120kph it would read 13.2 or so.. I will go test to make sure, but you can see the number jump when he hits 2nd gear from 1.4 to .7 simply because the engine is forcing high rpms to accelerate, not maintain.

Indeed I just tried it it reads out about 30~40 km/l

 

[Supermelon]

You have to remember, he's really hitting the gas in that video. Highway speeds is usually in low rpm in the proper gear - if he held it steady I'm sure at 120kph it would read 13.2 or so.. I will go test to make sure, but you can see the number jump when he hits 2nd gear from 1.4 to .7 simply because the engine is forcing high rpms to accelerate, not maintain.

Indeed I just tried it it reads out about 30~40 km/l

30-40km/l at 120kph?
After some calculations it comes out to 2.5-3.33 liters per 100km, which is equal to 71.3-94 mpg.

 

[Heath_1]

Supermelon you must be wrong at saying 2.5 - 3.3 ltres per 100 kms, the way it works is.. well that would be very very good economy and simply not possible at over 300 km per hour, the higher the number the worse it would be. So 25 - 33 would be a more realistic figure.

Example, my car (3.6 litre V6) gets around 12 - 13 litres per 100 km.. meaning for every 100 km that I drive I'm using 12 to 13 litres of fuel. So using 40 litres for every 100 km you drive is obviously worse. Make sense?

But km per litre is sorta the other way around, using one litre of fuel in 40 kms is better than using one litre of fuel in 3 kms.

 

[TP1]

Imagine if we had to pay for refueling in the same way we do oil changes; we'd all be broke around the clock!

Imagine pulling up to your pit crew in the middle of an endurance race, and they don't let you drive away till you pay the gas bill!

 

[R.S]

You have to remember, he's really hitting the gas in that video. Highway speeds is usually in low rpm in the proper gear - if he held it steady I'm sure at 120kph it would read 13.2 or so.. I will go test to make sure, but you can see the number jump when he hits 2nd gear from 1.4 to .7 simply because the engine is forcing high rpms to accelerate, not maintain.

Indeed I just tried it it reads out about 30~40 km/l

Yes of course a highway cruise @100kmh uses less fuel than accelerating through 100kmh.



What I'm saying about is that it doesn't seem to match anything standard.

The number is increasing while full out accelerating this doesn't make sense if its distance per fuel amount.
(1.1distance/unit of fuel) accelerating at 160kmh-ish and (2.9distance/unit of fuel) trying to accelerate at full speed.
Surely it doesn't use 2x less fuel accelerating at 300+kmh than it does accelerating at 160?. So it can't be distance per fuel amount(kilometers/Liter)

I think it has to be fuel consumption per distance(L/100km), but what?
1.1 liters is far to little for accelerating through 160kmh over 100km,

So I thought maybe it's per 10km as in (1.1 liters for 16kmh) :
Or (11 liters for 160km flatout): this puts it in the ballpark. Considering the lp560 does (11ish liters for 100km highway) obviously its still far far too small.


Maybe its showing gallons per 10miles? as in:
1.1 means (25 liters per 100km accelerating at 160kmh)
2.9 means (68 liters per 100km accelerating at 300kmh)at this rate I believe the 90 Liter tank will last 26 minutes and travel 131 kilometers.
Reasonable (hope my calculations are correct) but I don't think there would be that much difference between the two, although I know basically nothing about how cars guzzle fuel comparatively in different situations. Just running from general knowledge.

Supermelon you must be wrong at saying 2.5 - 3.3 ltres per 100 kms

Supermelon is converting corpsey's suggestion of (30~40 km/Liter) into (Liter/100km).

 

[Supermelon]

Supermelon you must be wrong at saying 2.5 - 3.3 ltres per 100 kms, the way it works is.. well that would be very very good economy and simply not possible at over 300 km per hour, the higher the number the worse it would be. So 25 - 33 would be a more realistic figure.

Example, my car (3.6 litre V6) gets around 12 - 13 litres per 100 km.. meaning for every 100 km that I drive I'm using 12 to 13 litres of fuel. So using 40 litres for every 100 km you drive is obviously worse. Make sense?

But km per litre is sorta the other way around, using one litre of fuel in 40 kms is better than using one litre of fuel in 3 kms.

What you are trying say is exactly what I meant. I took an extra step to try and show in different measurement units how that kind of fuel consumption level is pretty much unachievable in real life in a Lambo with a 5.2L V10.

The number is increasing while full out accelerating this doesn't make sense if its distance per fuel amount.
(1.1distance/unit of fuel) accelerating at 160kmh-ish and (2.9distance/unit of fuel) trying to accelerate at full speed.
Surely it doesn't use 2x less fuel accelerating at 300+kmh than it does accelerating at 160?. So it can't be distance per fuel amount(kilometers/Liter)

I'm thinking it most likely should be distance per fuel amount (km/L).

At the beginning of the video you can see the driver revving the engine but the display doesn't move and shows 0.0 until the car actually starts moving physically.
To put it in math form it would be:
0km driven (divided by) x amount of gas used, the result will be 0.

My theory below assumes that in GT5 at the same engine rpm with the same throttle input, the amount of fuel used is constant regardless of aerodynamic drag and vehicle speed.

As for why it seems to be using less gas while accelerating at top speed compared to 160kph, I think the value shown should be correct.
The car isn't using less fuel but is actually traveling at about double the distance with the same amount of fuel consumed.

When the Lambo is accelerating at 160kph, the rpm of the engine is at about 8500 or redline. This is also the case when it accelerates towards its top speed of about 320kph, the engine rpm is also around 8500. In these two situations, the engine speed is nearly the same meaning the fuel consumption should be very similar, but at 320kph the car is covering twice the distance compared to 160kph while using the same amount of fuel.


This is what I think the display is trying to show. Sorry for the grammar errors, its harder than I thought it is to explain in words.

 

[Corpsey]

I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out an explanation for 30 km/litre.. and actually like someone else said I was not taking accelerating UP TO 120kph into account.. so by taking the mean of accelerating up and into my previous result I get about 11.2~13.2 km/litre - but this gets better if you're staying at 120kph and worse if you need to accelerate at any point again to get back to 120kph. This comes out to 8.9~7.6 litres/100km just to get to highway speed however. If you calculate the mean number again as you're driving you can just keep lowering the fuel consumption:

Initial mean calculation
2+7+7+10+(30~40)
5

the mean you can get if you keep driving
2+7+7+10+35n
4+n

these calculate (the mean) for km/litre so then you have to calculate for litres per 100km;
divide 100 by the number of kms per litre, the remaining number is the number of litres per 100km driven.

This mean was just an example though, the math is also just close approximation - but it does prove that the numbers gathered accelerating to speed changes the seemingly impossible "2.86L/100km" to a more real number ("8.9~7.6 litres/100km")

all mean is, for people that don't know for whatever reason;
collected numbers
total number of collected numbers


Anyways to sum: accelerating must be taken into account to get a proper L/100km reading.. km/litre on the other hand is a number that can just simply help calculate how efficient you're being with the car while driving it. Having L/100km on your display would be useless because it would be reading out a number that it wouldn't actually finish calculating until it got to 100km. How will the car predict how much litres you're going to use? The way the dash works for the Gallardo is by telling you "Every litre in the tank is going to get you this far".

Also, good find I guess.

 

[Heath_1]

Stuff all this pathetic mathematical bull and let me put it into simpletons terms for everyone (eg; dumb people like me) to understand.

It's a thirsty son of a gun

 

[bass264]

Stuff all this pathetic mathematical bull and let me put it into simpletons terms for everyone (eg; dumb people like me) to understand.

It's a thirsty son of a gun

I'm sure the people that buy Lambo's in real life can afford to fill it up at the gas station.

 

[Corpsey]

Actually lower L/100km is good fuel efficiency..

 

[Antonisbob]

Stuff all this pathetic mathematical bull and let me put it into simpletons terms for everyone (eg; dumb people like me) to understand.

It's a thirsty son of a gun

I see what you did there.