Fuel Consumption Test - Alfa Mito 1.4 /Nurb.

  • Thread starter TurismoBad
  • 31 comments
  • 2,313 views
1,240
Italy
Italy
I was curious if driving at regular speed will burn similar amount of fuel as in real life.

Driving slowly on Nurburgring at around 90km/h and 60-70 in uphill sections the stock Alfa Mito did 62 km burning 14 liters of fuel giving us a 22l/100km consumption.

Uphill sections are surely very demanding but 22l seems a bit too high.

Will do the same on la Sarthe which is much more leveled and then Ill update this thread.

RL Mito fuel consumption:

city 8,5; highway 5,3;

Comfort tires had zero wear after 62km of slow driving - I wanted to verify if distance alone is the factor in tire consumption - it isn't. 👍

edit: Others suggested that the values in game are represented in % of the car's fuel capacity.

I had this thought but I don't think that's the case for all cars - I see a word "liters" and the amounts I can putt in matches those of fuel gauge of SLS GT3 (digital reading)

This could still be the case for cars with 100l fuel tanks in-game but smaller in RL - in this case a car would do the similar amounts of KM on a in-game fuel tank but being it 100l instead of for example 45l the amounts burned will be higher in order to match the RL mileage.
 
Last edited:
Alfa Mito on la Sarthe - average 90km/h - 4 liters for one lap (14km) - that would mean 28l/100km - obviously way to high.

SLR again on la Sarthe - average 90km/h - 7 liters for one lap - meaning 50l/100km

SLR again on la Sarthe full throttle - 28 liters for one lap - meaning consumption of 200l/100km

All are way too high but at least cruising SLR consumes much more than cruising Mito. 👍
 
I wonder what exactly does we or the game benefits from having highly exaggerated consumption levels than having them close to real?

Unless they just typed some numbers for each car, not even caring how far or close to reality it is... That would make sense, zero research about real life fuel consumption, just put it there in the game, because it "looks good".

The premium cars should all have fuel consumption luke in reality, at least them, if it's to difficult or to much work for all the cars.
 
Thanks! Another detail for a future update to correct.

Exaggerated fuel consumption to match shortness of average race duration compared to reality, one might presume?

Yeah that's what I thought as well. With normal fuel consumption we will never had to re-fuel in a 24 minute race.

I will do few more economic runs with the GTR@coffee break but the one I did I managed 15l/100km - which could actually be pretty close to reality considering regular GTR does 11l/100km on flat highway.
 
@TurismoBad
When you did your Mito Nurburgring test what sort of RPM were you upshifting at (or were you using an auto transmission)?
Apologies if I'm preaching to the converted but (IRL) gear selection will have a profound effect on fuel economy - not sure if GT models this, but it should.

Cheers,

Bread
 
@TurismoBad
When you did your Mito Nurburgring test what sort of RPM were you upshifting at (or were you using an auto transmission)?
Apologies if I'm preaching to the converted but (IRL) gear selection will have a profound effect on fuel economy - not sure if GT models this, but it should.

Cheers,

Bread

Manual - very slow acceleration , gear changes at around 2,500 RPM

And yes - from what I saw fuel consumption in GT6 does depends on

1. RPM

2. Throttle

3. Car model - to what extent I'm not sure but it could be something simple like Race car burns X, small road car burns Y, super car burns Z rather than be different for each car.

So full throttle acceleration from 3000 to 4000 RPM will burn more than full throttle from 1000-2000 RPM. Also riding at 90km/h in 3rd gear will burn more than riding at 90km/h in 6th gear.
 
Manual - very slow acceleration , gear changes at around 2,500 RPM

👍 Nice, can't really get more economical than that without coasting in neutral or turning the engine off!

Also nice to hear that GT6 models rpm and throttle behaviour. Shame the consumption values seem to be a lot higher than real life though. I can imagine it'd be a pig to program correctly since you'd have to have really good engine fuel usage model, aerodynamic model and tyre rolling resistance model - a big ask for the amount of cars they have. Would have hoped they could have been closer than a factor of 4 out though.

Cheers,

Bread
 
Great experiment!

I did the 24-minute Nurburgring race (3 lap) with the McLaren F1 GTR Base Model, RM Tires without any pit stop by just cruising (not doing 90-kph though). No need for Intermediates or Wets.

I finished 1st with the fumes left in the tank, with plenty of tires left :D
 
My minor test, was by necessity on the Super Licence event at Willow Springs. A Ford Focus at near full chat (some coasting, etc.) was able to run the entire race on a single tank of gas--- although the front tires were toast and the car was too slow to win. When I tried to win the race, I used the McLaren MP4-12C and it used about 1.5-1.75 tanks of fuel at near full chat, except near the end where I conserved to make it and win. A Focus ST is slated to get around 32-34mpg highway and the McLaren is expected to get around 22mpg. Seems legit to me.
 
My minor test, was by necessity on the Super Licence event at Willow Springs. A Ford Focus at near full chat (some coasting, etc.) was able to run the entire race on a single tank of gas--- although the front tires were toast and the car was too slow to win. When I tried to win the race, I used the McLaren MP4-12C and it used about 1.5-1.75 tanks of fuel at near full chat, except near the end where I conserved to make it and win. A Focus ST is slated to get around 32-34mpg highway and the McLaren is expected to get around 22mpg. Seems legit to me.

I did the race re-fueling once for 24 liters and I finished it with almost nothing in the tank.

That's 120-ish liters to do 31 km of race.

387 liters for 100km or 0.6 MPG

F1 cars get 3,5 MPG. That MP4 racing ...5-6 I guess?

Great car the MP4 btw 👍
 
I think they should've made the fuel consumption 60 times the real life in the events where time moves 60 times real time. Sure it would mean that you'd never be able to complete a whole lap, but it would add to the realism of the endurance races.
 
Very interesting but I have a question, how did you determine how many liters of fuel you put in? I noticed the slider when you pull in the pits is a percentage not liters. If you take the SLS AMG GT3 and go in cockpit view, you see the car has a working fuel gauge, that starts at 120 liters, which I believe is the real fuel capacity for the car. So I was just wondering if the cars you tested had fuel gauges that worked like that?
 
Very interesting but I have a question, how did you determine how many liters of fuel you put in? I noticed the slider when you pull in the pits is a percentage not liters. If you take the SLS AMG GT3 and go in cockpit view, you see the car has a working fuel gauge, that starts at 120 liters, which I believe is the real fuel capacity for the car. So I was just wondering if the cars you tested had fuel gauges that worked like that?

I agree with you there. There is even a trophy wich states to win a race with 1% or less in your fuel tank. So yeah its in % and not in Liters. :D
 
Very interesting but I have a question, how did you determine how many liters of fuel you put in? I noticed the slider when you pull in the pits is a percentage not liters. If you take the SLS AMG GT3 and go in cockpit view, you see the car has a working fuel gauge, that starts at 120 liters, which I believe is the real fuel capacity for the car. So I was just wondering if the cars you tested had fuel gauges that worked like that?

Working fuel gauge ? Awesome! I can't quite recall for the cars I did but I will check later today.

And yeah it's in % but not for all cars.
 
Last edited:
So it's close to reality then.

4% of 45l (MiTo's fuel tank capacity) over 14km equates to 1.8l over 14km which then equates to 128ml of petrol per 1 km which gives us a total of 12.8l per 100km (18.3mpg) at 90km/h.
Compared to MiTo's real life advertised figures of 10.6l (22mpg) I'd say it's close enough.
 
Last edited:
So it's close to reality then.

4% of 45l (MiTo's fuel tank capacity) over 14km equates to 1.8l over 14km which then equates to 128ml of petrol per 1 km which gives us a total of 12.8l per 100km (18.3mpg) at 90km/h.
Compared to MiTo's real life advertised figures of 10.6l (22mpg) I'd say it's close enough.

Considering there are so many conditions that need to be met to get the advertised fuel number, i'd say yea thats close enough
 
OK about % thing:

Yes but not for all.

I see this NOWHERE THOUGH (%) - I SEE LITERS - not "lt" not "%" - in game I see a word "liters" during pit stops and it matches SLS GT3 fuel gauge reading EXACTLY - 8 liters less on fuel gauge - 8 liters max you can putt back in during pit stop.


I did the above test in online lobby at "normal" settings.

For cars with smaller RL fuel tanks (like the Mito) the in-game consumption may be higher in liters but RL fuel tank VS in-game fuel tank mileage should be similar - so there we can say it's a % value of RL car fuel tank capacity.
 
OK about % thing:

Yes but not for all.

I see this NOWHERE THOUGH (%) - I SEE LITERS - not "lt" not "%" - in game I see a word "liters" during pit stops and it matches SLS GT3 fuel gauge reading EXACTLY - 8 liters less on fuel gauge - 8 liters max you can putt back in during pit stop.


I did the above test in online lobby at "normal" settings.

For cars with smaller RL fuel tanks (like the Mito) the in-game consumption may be higher in liters but RL fuel tank VS in-game fuel tank mileage should be similar - so there we can say it's a % value of RL car fuel tank capacity.

To determine wether or not it's a writing error (liters when it should be %) you can compare how long it takes to refuel two different cars, one that has a smaller tank in reality and one that has a bigger. If they both take the same time, then they should both have the same tank size in the game.
 
It'd be a huge physics/modeling problem if they made all the cars have 100l fuel tanks. That'd be hugely unrealistic (most small road cars have about 45l fuel tanks) in regards to the car's weight and weight distribution.
 
It'd be a huge physics/modeling problem if they made all the cars have 100l fuel tanks. That'd be hugely unrealistic (most small road cars have about 45l fuel tanks) in regards to the car's weight and weight distribution.
It was already that way in GT5. Light, underpowered cars were the ones that suffered the most when fuel consumption was enabled. Try cheking out the difference with a Citroen 2CV...

EDIT
I just tried online on SSRX with a few cars.

Citroen 2CV - 0-80 Km/h
Tire/fuel depletion OFF: 39.64 seconds
Tire/fuel depletion ON: 44.13 seconds

Honda Life Step Van '72 - 0-80 Km/h
Tire/fuel depletion OFF: 24.67 seconds
Tire/fuel depletion ON: 26.13 seconds

Suzuki Wagon R RR '98 (tuned) - 0-100 Km/h
Tire/fuel depletion OFF: 7.92 seconds
Tire/fuel depletion ON: 8.28 seconds
 
Last edited:
It was already that way in GT5. Light, underpowered cars were the ones that suffered the most when fuel consumption was enabled. Try cheking out the difference with a Citroen 2CV...

EDIT
I just tried online on SSRX with a few cars.

Citroen 2CV - 0-80 Km/h
Tire/fuel depletion OFF: 39.64 seconds
Tire/fuel depletion ON: 44.13 seconds

Honda Life Step Van '72 - 0-80 Km/h
Tire/fuel depletion OFF: 24.67 seconds
Tire/fuel depletion ON: 26.13 seconds

Suzuki Wagon R RR '98 (tuned) - 0-100 Km/h
Tire/fuel depletion OFF: 7.92 seconds
Tire/fuel depletion ON: 8.28 seconds
Is that GT5?
 
Back