Random Investigation Of The Week! Part 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Firehound427
  • 14 comments
  • 1,179 views
Firehound427

Firehound427

Messages
1,377
United States
United States
Messages
Firehound427
Messages
CivicTypeR15
So here it is, an idea I've had for a while now! Each weekend, I will launch a random investigation into something in GT5. And although I have quite a few ideas, you guys can put your own ideas in! And if I select your idea, you can receive one of the vehicles used in the test! So here's part 1, to be tested on Saturday:

Does a car with a small, turbocharged engine consume less fuel than a car with a big naturally aspirated engine making the same amount of horsepower?

I will purchase a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X and a Ford Mustang GT from the New Car Dealer. Both of these cars produce 290-310HP, but the Mustang uses a 4.6 V8 to produce that power, while the Evo uses a turbocharged 2.0 4-cylinder. In real life, economy can be dictated by engine size, and indeed it is the current trend for car makers to fit smaller, turbocharged engines in their cars. The game says that fuel consumption depends on power output, so will the Lancer, with it's small turbo powerplant outlast the big Mustang, or will the equal power make it equal at the fuel pump? I will run this on Special Stage Route X, allowing me to run flat-out without having to brake. As always, feedback and new ideas for other random investigations are welcome!
 
Last edited:
How will you factor in aerodynamics into your test? Aero also effects fuel economy.
 
I dunno, but I do know that both cars are running stock aero. Mind you, the Evo and the Mustang are going to make things a bit interesting in terms of aerodynamics. I may re-run this test at a future date.
 
For the record, a turbocharged motor is not a "blown powerplant". A supercharger is a blower, supercharging and turbocharging are not the same thing. Also for the record...I would much rather be blown :sly:
 
I have gone back and corrected that little mistake. Apologies.
 
Should do shouldn't it?

Interesting idea these investigations.
 
STATUS UPDATE: Unfortunately, due to a busy schedule, I was not able to conduct the investigation into fuel economy on Saturday. However, I have now been able to get online and set my room to launch the investigation.

I will be running on Special Stage Route X, allowing me to run both cars flat out for 18 miles. Both cars are running completely stock, with no modifications (not even an oil change) and running on the Sports Hard tires. I will start the test as soon as each car leaves the pitlane, running them flat out at top speed before going into the pitlane at the end of the lap, seeing how much fuel you can choose to refill the car with. A side-effect of running on SSRX is that I can also test the top speed of each car.

Here are the results:
Mustang GT (292HP, 4.6 V8): 10 liters of fuel consumed
Evolution X (307HP, 2.0 Turbo I4): 10 liters of fuel consumed

From these results, I can conclude that the game's deciding factor of power output determines fuel economy, and not the real world factor of engine size and induction. However, I understand that there are a number of other factors involved, such as weight, aerodynamics and transmission (That, and the Evo was running 10mph faster than the Ford). I may decide to re-run this investigation with different cars should member demand be high enough.

Now this investigation is over, I am looking for ideas for Week 2 of Random Investigation Of The Week. Remember, if your idea gets selected (Cost of vehicles shouldn't exceed Cr.1,000,000), you will be credited, and you will receive the car used in the test (or your choice if I use more than one car.).
Also, as I have finished this investigation, I don't need the Lancer Evolution X used in the test, so whoever wants it can have it. It has 0 miles (this test was run online), 0 wins, and is painted in Red Metallic. First come, first serve. I'm not asking for anything in return.
 
Can you find out (or do you know) which gives the better performance. Adding ballast or reducing hp?
 
You know, that seems like a good idea. Any idea how much ballast I should add, and how much horsepower I should remove? Some idea on a test car would be nice as well...
 
Take the same car two times, tune it about 100PP higher than its stock output, than limit it down about 20PP again using weight on the first one and power limiting on the second. Than do some time trials (going flat out might not be the best method to measure their 'performance' properly).

It's a question I was asking myself some time now too, for me personally it's easier to add ballast as it makes the car less nervous and reduces the hectic while driving on the edge... though if you're a great driver you'll get better times using a compareable lightweight instead, at least all car magazines I ever read tests like that in came to that conclusion.
 
It's settled then. My next investigation will focus on the effectiveness of adding weight vs the effectiveness of removing horsepower. What car should I use for the test? I'm also going to need a track, somewhere with a nice balance of turns and straights.
 
I think Suzuka would be a good track, owing to the turns and it has a good straight to test speed.

As for the car it may be worth using something where the effects will show more. I'd say something in the middle ground like a Skyline or NSX as they are always around the same power and weight.
 
That's a big 10-4!
 
It's interesting to find out these differences between real world racing and GT5.
 
Firehound427
Here are the results:
Mustang GT (292HP, 4.6 V8): 10 liters of fuel consumed
Evolution X (307HP, 2.0 Turbo I4): 10 liters of fuel consumed
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, these results still don't prove that horsepower is the deciding factor for fuel consumption. Although the Evo is a 4 cyl. engine with a turbo, and the Mustang a N/A V8, both cars have almost identical fuel mileage numbers in the real world.

2010 Evo X:
City: 15 mpg
Highway: 22 mpg
Combined: 18 mpg

2009 Mustang GT
City: 15 mpg
Highway: 23 mpg
Combined: 18 mpg

In order to make this test accurate, you will need to find a car that has the same power output as the N/A V8, but gets better fuel mileage in real life.
 
Back