BoP Fuel Efficiency Comparison

[Chrome_PuPXD]

I did some testing on the fuel efficiency of various cars, I will expand this as I collect more.

I tested on special stage route x, since it is a straight line and has distance markers to make it easier. This was done using x50 fuel use and noting the maximum range of each car (Distance covered at the point the car runs out of fuel).
To keep it as fair as possible all cars were tested on racing hard tyres, BoP on, fuel mix 1 and flat out, as well as manually shifted at the red line for each gear and kept in a straight line with as little turning as I could manage. I checked each result a few times to ensure accuracy.

Gr1:

1. Jaguar XJR-9..............5400m 👑
2. Mazda 787B................4980m
3. Nissan R92CP..............4450m

Gr3:

1. Mazda RX Vision Concept....5250m 👑
2. Peugeot RCZ.....................5000m
3. Aston Martin V12 Vantage...4950m
4. Audi R8 LMS Evo................4750m
5. Honda NSX.......................4625m
6. Alfa Romeo 4C..................4580m
7. GT Citroen Race Car...........4550m
8. Chevrolet Corvette C7........4150m
9. Castrol Supra GT500..........3750m

Gr4:

1. Honda NSX......................6950m 👑
2. Mazda Atenza...................6725m
3. Aston Martin V8 Vantage....6500m
4. Toyota GR Supra...............6475m
5. Nissan Silvia S15 Spec R....6380m
6. Ford Mustang....................5475m

It should be noted that there is an uphill then downhill section on SSX at around 5000m, since this is the same for all cars the ranking order is valid but a % used per 1000m should not be calculated due to more or less time downhill for different cars.

 

[Talon16]

Hm, interesting. Thanks for doing that.

I wonder if/how the results would be different if the cars were accelerating, wide open throttle, out of turns rather than just going flat out.

 

[Michael88]

I did some testing on the fuel efficiency of various GR3 cars, I only have 7 currently so I might add to this if I get a few more.

So you did start a custom race, adjusted fuel consumption to x50, rolling start and then noted when the car ran out of fuel? So the test also includes the incline at around 3000 meters or so?

 

[Keef]

This is good info to have but you might want to choose a different track to reduce the variation of the hill on SSRX. That hill is massive and could potentially cost a car at least 1/4 mile if it can't make it over the top and coast down. I'd suggest the Daytona oval since the low line is even flatter on average than SSRX. As for the distance markers, each car has an odometer so the track distance markers are completely unnecessary.

 

[Christian_C]

Hmm, I have all the Gr3/Gr4 cars, I might give this a go at Daytona like Keef suggests later tonight.

 

[nickg07]

Hmm, I have all the Gr3/Gr4 cars, I might give this a go at Daytona like Keef suggests later tonight.

Do it and post the results it would be super useful to know!!

 

[Chrome_PuPXD]

So you did start a custom race, adjusted fuel consumption to x50, rolling start and then noted when the car ran out of fuel? So the test also includes the incline at around 3000 meters or so?

I did it in my own online lobby, much quicker to change the cars and go back in, I did it straight from the pit lane

This is good info to have but you might want to choose a different track to reduce the variation of the hill on SSRX. That hill is massive and could potentially cost a car at least 1/4 mile if it can't make it over the top and coast down. I'd suggest the Daytona oval since the low line is even flatter on average than SSRX. As for the distance markers, each car has an odometer so the track distance markers are completely unnecessary.

Odometer is not precise enough to see the difference between the cars with similar fuel use, you would be limited to 0.1km increments and even then you dont necessarily start exactly on the figure seen, it might say 120.3 when behind the scenes its 120.34 or even .39 if it doesnt round. So you'd tick over to the next digit much quicker or slower at the start and end so could potentially be off by 150m, an error margin which covers multiple cars.

SSX hill doesnt make much difference when all but 2 of the cars dont make it up the hill anyway so can still be compared, cars making it to the peak can't be exact values, but id say thats not neccesary when we still know they go further.
There is also no effect of coasting down the hill since its taken when fuel runs out not when they roll to a stop.

 

[Grayfox]

Set fuel usage to 100x.
All cars should run out before hill, then divide results by 100.

 

[Michael88]

I did some tests of my own, Special Stage, custom race, fuel consumption x50, rolling start, flat out shifting at redline, fuel map 1, no BOP:

VGT Alpine road car power detuned to 698PP: 5500 meters
Honda NSX Group-4 636PP: 5500 meters
Hyundai Genesis Group-3 728PP: 4200 meters
Alpine A220 1968 max downforce 609PP: 3700 meters
Subaru WRX Group-3 729PP: 3600 meters - This one surprised me, that's a very poor result.


Just for fun my custom Group-4 cars for 700PP max races, all full aero with max downforce, beginning with the 2 worst results of them all: (completely no-scientific)

Lamborghini Diablo GT 00' with full aero and wide body kit 698PP: 2500 meters
Maserati Gran Turismo 08' widebody, full aero, 689PP: 2500 meters
Chevrolet Camaro SS 2016, full aero and widebody, 698PP: 2900 meters
Corvette Stingray 1971, full aero, widebody, 668PP: 3200 meters
TVR Tuscan Speed 6, widebody and full aero, 699PP: 3700 meters
Honda NSX Type R 02', widebody, full aero, 673PP: 4200 meters - The best of all my ''custom Group 4'' cars.

 

[Andy Lapi]

Did you use the BOP?

 

[Chrome_PuPXD]

Set fuel usage to 100x.
All cars should run out before hill, then divide results by 100.

50x is the highest possible and making them run out sooner would cloud the differences between all cars, just 2 being on/over the hill is much more acceptable

Did you use the BOP?

I did indeed, ill add that to my first post.

 

[Andy Lapi]

Good👍

 

[Grayfox]

Just for fun my custom Group-4 cars for 700PP max races, all full aero with max downforce, beginning with the 2 worst results of them all: (completely no-scientific)

Lamborghini Diablo GT 00' with full aero and wide body kit 698PP: 2500 meters
Maserati Gran Turismo 08' widebody, full aero, 689PP: 2500 meters
Chevrolet Camaro SS 2016, full aero and widebody, 698PP: 2900 meters
Corvette Stingray 1971, full aero, widebody, 668PP: 3200 meters
TVR Tuscan Speed 6, widebody and full aero, 699PP: 3700 meters
Honda NSX Type R 02', widebody, full aero, 673PP: 4200 meters - The best of all my ''custom Group 4'' cars.

Test the Suzuki Swift Sport Gr4.
That thing sips fuel.
You can do 4 laps on LeMans with map 6 and if you slip stream, short shift, lift & coast you can do 5.

 

[Michael88]

Test the Suzuki Swift Sport Gr4.
That thing sips fuel.
You can do 4 laps on LeMans with map 6 and if you slip stream, short shift, lift & coast you can do 5.

Oh the Swift Group 4. Oh boy. I know, this thing is annoying when you don't drive it yourself. There is the 30 minutes race at Laguna Seca and that annoying little troll car does not even pit once. And as if that was not enough, last race it even rear-ended me and spun me into the dirt on the last lap.
I will never buy it. NEVER!!!!

 

[Grayfox]

Oh the Swift Group 4. Oh boy. I know, this thing is annoying when you don't drive it yourself. There is the 30 minutes race at Laguna Seca and that annoying little troll car does not even pit once. And as if that was not enough, last race it even rear-ended me and spun me into the dirt on the last lap.
I will never buy it. NEVER!!!!

I use it for the WTC700 @ LeMans if I want a 100% win.
Otherwise I use the 4C Gr4.
Uses more fuel, has lift off oversteer, but it is fast.

 

[Michael88]

I use it for the WTC700 @ LeMans if I want a 100% win.
Otherwise I use the 4C Gr4.
Uses more fuel, has lift off oversteer, but it is fast.

I find the 30 minutes 700PP Le Mans race very easy, in fact I have won it every single time even when I messed up, used crappy cars and completely shredded intermediate tires on dry asphalt fishtailing through the Porsche corners like on ice, lol.
I even won it twice using my Diablo GT 00' and that thing requires fuel saving measures so that it can drag its thirsty butt into the pits at freaking Lap 2.

With the VGT Alpine and the Alpine A220 68' I have managed very easy victories with 1 pit stop only and 1-1.5 minutes lead.

 

[Christian_C]

Here's my rundown of Gr.3.

Test Setup:
1) Daytona Oval - Default weather (5 km/h headwind on backstretch)
2) 50x fuel multiplier
3) BoP enabled
4) Measure entire distance covered from as soon as the car starts moving in the pitlane to the point the engine cuts on track using the in-car odometer.
5) Units are metric (km)

A couple of things regarding this test:

1) I believe it is DIRECTIONALLY correct, as in, this is approximately the true order. What I do not think is entirely true is the magnitude difference between the cars. The wind will have come into play somewhat I'm sure, if someone wishes to reconduct the test themselves in some better conditions, I'd certainly encourage that.

2) This test would have a much reduced margin of error by using a much smaller fuel usage multiplier. Something like a 10x would probably be more practically relevant to real racing situations. Sorry but I just don't have time to do that!

3) What's up with the DBR9? In short, gearing. This car LUGS when it shifts into 6th. I'm reasonably sure that is why its mileage is so good. I would just consider this car an outlier but I included the data for sake of completeness. You can see something similar between the two Ford GT LM spec cars. The gearing certainly feels different between the two and the mileage is separated accordingly.

4) I don't have the 3 Legendary cars yet, sorry!

5) If you can do it with no wind, that would be better.

 

[Christian_C]

Doubled posted, sorry.

 

[NikNakTobasco]

Here's my rundown of Gr.3.

Test Setup:
1) Daytona Oval - Default weather (5 km/h headwind on backstretch)
2) 50x fuel multiplier
3) BoP enabled
4) Measure entire distance covered from as soon as the car starts moving in the pitlane to the point the engine cuts on track using the in-car odometer.
5) Units are metric (km)

A couple of things regarding this test:

1) I believe it is DIRECTIONALLY correct, as in, this is approximately the true order. What I do not think is entirely true is the magnitude difference between the cars. The wind will have come into play somewhat I'm sure, if someone wishes to reconduct the test themselves in some better conditions, I'd certainly encourage that.

2) This test would have a much reduced margin of error by using a much smaller fuel usage multiplier. Something like a 10x would probably be more practically relevant to real racing situations. Sorry but I just don't have time to do that!

3) What's up with the DBR9? In short, gearing. This car LUGS when it shifts into 6th. I'm reasonably sure that is why its mileage is so good. I would just consider this car an outlier but I included the data for sake of completeness. You can see something similar between the two Ford GT LM spec cars. The gearing certainly feels different between the two and the mileage is separated accordingly.

4) I don't have the 3 Legendary cars yet, sorry!

5) If you can do it with no wind, that would be better.

View attachment 1139555

This is amazing. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Harmonic]

I recommend finding the peak power band for each car. Shifting at redline is slower in quite a few Gr.3 cars, and it also consumes more fuel, so the results from shifting at redline in those cars won't translate to a real racing scenario.

 

[NikNakTobasco]

I can vouch for the FT1 being absolutely terrible with fuel

 

[Christian_C]

I recommend finding the peak power band for each car. Shifting at redline is slower in quite a few Gr.3 cars, and it also consumes more fuel, so the results from shifting at redline in those cars won't translate to a real racing scenario.

Yeah I could see that. It's just that's an extra level of depth that I didn't have time to go chasing when I did this. Most of the Gr.3's I haven't driven outside this test so I went for the consistent option that the majority of people are probably going to be using (shifting when the game tells them to).

For sure there's many ways to make the above test more race relevant but the time investment will become exponential.

 

[Chrome_PuPXD]

I've added in the 4C and V12 Vantage to the Gr3 category.

Also made a start on Gr4 and Gr1.

Since I only have 1 Gr2 car(CLK LM) i've withheld that for now until there's something to compare to, this is my lowest priority class since the cars are 800k each and do not feature in daily races as much as Gr3/4.

Next on the shopping list that will be tested is the McLaren Gr3 and 4C Gr4.

 

[TheWeapon874]

How did you go with the Gr4 comparison @Chrome_PuPXD ?