The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:27 pm	Does that title sound familiar to anyone? A couple of years ago I did a study on the 3.2L, 3L Rotary, 4L, and 3.2L V8 engines comparing their base horsepower. Well, I've done the same, now, with all engines from 1L through 3.2L, meaning that everything from 1L to 4L/3.2L V8 has been covered. Just what am I talking about, you ask? I wanted to know the difference in power from one engine to another. I realize, of course, that each engine has different weight and size characteristics, but I wanted to do the DW equivalent of putting these engine on a dynamometer to see what kind of power they put out. Here's how it worked: I took a fleet of Phoenixes, put different engines in each one, and changed their armor or added ammunition to their trunk to make them all weigh exactly the same amount (2710). Then I put a full set of standard tires on each of them. Each car is at 100% with no perma-damage, and each engine is the same. Next, I created custom events with a number of these cars. I took them to a "race" at the Northern Desert Racing Circuit and pointed them down the longest flat straight that I could manage. I took one at a time down the straight, recording their speed on each turn. I then drove back, swapped my driver into the next car, and did it again. In this way only the engine was tested, not the track, turning, or the driver. The results are as follows: The main reason that I did this test was to see where, exactly, the 2.0L Rotary engine fit in the scheme of things. Now we know; somewhere between the 2.0L and 2.5L. For those interested in the next set of engines and my older tests here are the numbers there: Here is a copy of that whole old post for those of you who never got to see it the first time around. The Paranoid Tourist said: Ok. Much debate and hullabaloo has been made about the engines in the 3L-4L class; those engines best suited to lower-class muscle cars, decent sedans, and the game's most common SUVs. In an effort to quell some of the debate which goes on constantly regarding the relative power/speed of these engines, I decided to do some testing. A 3L Rotary, 3.2L, 3.2 V8, and 4L engine were each put into Bullets, and the vehicles were made identical. Each had racing tires and the 4L engine had some armor reduced and a few rounds of ammo thrown in the trunk in order to make that car weigh the same as the others. These tests were done to examine the raw power of the engines, which means that the additional weight of the 4L needed to be factored out, so consider the fact that your speeds will be slower using the 4L should you not decrease the weight to match. The same driver was used for each vehicle's test so that none had an advantage of increased skill from the driver behind the wheel. The steering wheel was kept at a dead straight position. Each car but the one with the 4L engine had full B armor. These cars were entered into a custom event at the Canyon Joust racetrack and were subjected to a pair of tests, one on level ground and the other going up the hill on the bridge. The results are as follows: On Level Ground Turn    3.2    3L R 3.2V8 4L 0    0    0    0    0 1    13    13    17    14 2    22    24    26    25 3    28    30    33    32 4    34    36    40    38 5    38    41    46    44 6    43    46    51    50 7    48    51    57    55 8    52    56    62    60 9    56    60    67    64 We can see, here, that the V8 is simply the strongest engine of the bunch. The new 3L Rotary is faster than the 3.2L engine, but can not reach the speeds of a 4L. I may have to do some tests, however, to see if the added weight of the 4L would slow it down to the speed of the rotary. The problem with that, however, is that the difference would be relative to the weight of the chassis, as the extra 250 (pounds?) in the 4L engine would be only a percentage of the total weight. It should also be remembered that the 3L Rotary is a tougher engine. So it might be your choice in a ram car or some such when you might be expecting to take engine damage. Also, no real difference in acceleration through the lower or higher speeds was noticed in these tests. The belief in a "Low speed/low gear torque" difference which has floated around appears to be a myth. I graphed these stats and found the lines to be basically the same at their given acceleration, which backs up this statement. Unfortunately I know not how best to show those graphs here. Now for the other test. This sent the cars up a hill in an effort to see, again, if there was such a thing as a difference in torque between them. Turn    3.2L    3L R  3.2V8 4L 0    0    0    0    0 1    13    12    13    12 2    21    22    24    23 3    25    27    30    29 4    28    31    35    34 5    32    35    40    38 6    34    36    45    41 (Note: The first turn included a transition from flat ground to the hill, so a bit of discrepancy may be seen there, but it was mediated through the next turns) This further backs up both the relative speed information which I found to hold true in the last test, and the fact that there is no real difference in torque. While this wasn't a particularly steep hill, I feel that it should be indicative of the engines' general ability to pull a car up a hill. So, in summary, the engine output is fairly simple in Darkwind, and there is no low-speed torque exception. The list of engines, from slowest to fastest in this class are: Engine            Weight    Bulk 3.2 Liter          1000        60 3 Liter Rotary  1000        60 4 Liter              1250        75 3.2 Liter V8      1000        65 I certainly hope that everyone finds this clarifying and helpful. My one regret for the tests is that the data is only a few turns long, but I ran out of terrain and didn't want to steer and skew the data. Perhaps one day I will take these to SS where I can find a longer piece of track to test on. Please pass on any questions, comments, or requests for other tests and I'll be happy to do what I can to make them happen. From here I would like to do some longer runs of those midsize engines, then I'll move to the bigger stuff. I might need to borrow a 5LV12 in anyone would like to see how it stacks up. As I said those years ago, if anyone would like to see other tests I'll take requests.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:30 pm	That data is ripe for conversion into a chart. It can be hard to see where the spikes are just eyeballing the data.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:34 pm	Good point. Now that I've figured out how to post pictures I'll do that. (Not that there's much to see. They all go on pretty much the same curve.)
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:34 pm	That's gonna be pretty....... Excellent work.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:39 pm	There you go.
d0dger Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:39 pm	You may want to test in DW:Tactical. It wouldn't require you to actually own the gear and you should be able to setup for some of the long highway maps. Might be nice to take your info and the info I did here and link them up to compare power % increase moving up from one engine to the next, as compared to the increase in bulk and/or weight used. Question though, to compare the practical power output of a 3.2L V8 vs a 4L in a Phoenix for example... wouldn't you want the final weight to differ by the difference in engine weight? I guess you could be working under the theory that the bulk space saved will probably lead to more weight being added too though...
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:44 pm	d0dger said: Question though, to compare the practical power output of a 3.2L V8 vs a 4L in a Phoenix for example... wouldn't you want the final weight to differ by the difference in engine weight? I guess you could be working under the theory that the bulk space saved will probably lead to more weight being added too though... Good info, thanks. Yeah, I imagine the weight and space saved by using a smaller engine would be filled by something else-even if it's just ammo. Also, the weight difference is going to make a different impact on the engine's power depending on the chassis. If you put those in a Hotrod, for example, you will find a bigger difference in speed than if you put them in a Box Van, as the percentage of the total vehicle weight that the engine takes up is smaller in the Box Van than the Hotrod. Another batch of tests may be done in time with all vehicles identical in outfit but with different engines. I don't use tactical because I know nothing about it and don't feel like learning.
d0dger Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:59 pm	The Paranoid Tourist said: I don't use tactical because I know nothing about it and don't feel like learning. Yeah I tried doing it 2-3 times and gave up before I finally sat down and made myself figure it out one lazy weekend afternoon. It's very simple once you successfully set up your first.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:01 pm	d0dger said: The Paranoid Tourist said: I don't use tactical because I know nothing about it and don't feel like learning. Yeah I tried doing it 2-3 times and gave up before I finally sat down and made myself figure it out one lazy weekend afternoon. It's very simple once you successfully set up your first. Meh. I'll just stick with what I own.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:02 pm	Oh, by the way, I'll add that 1.8L in the next day or so. I made the mistake of putting it into a vehicle that needed some repairs done. Rather than change it to another vehicle I'll just test that one when I can.
Deathangels Shadow Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:35 pm	d0dger said: You may want to test in DW:Tactical. It wouldn't require you to actually own the gear and you should be able to setup for some of the long highway maps. I tried this.  The performance characteristics in DW:T are not the same as the regular game... I had a buggy in DT:T with a 0.6L that could do 0-60 in about 6 or 7 turns.  I had to abandon that line of research, as the physics don't seem to work the same in there.
johnny go Posted Apr 8, 2011, 10:44 pm	interesting stuf, but you know if you keep poking your nose behind Sams magic curtain HE WILL CUT IT OFF!!!!!!
d0dger Posted Apr 8, 2011, 11:30 pm	Deathangels Shadow said: d0dger said: You may want to test in DW:Tactical. It wouldn't require you to actually own the gear and you should be able to setup for some of the long highway maps. I tried this.  The performance characteristics in DW:T are not the same as the regular game... I had a buggy in DT:T with a 0.6L that could do 0-60 in about 6 or 7 turns.  I had to abandon that line of research, as the physics don't seem to work the same in there. Very odd. I wonder why that is.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 8, 2011, 11:32 pm	Ah, this reminds me. At some point I'm going to run vehicles of identical weight and engine but different chassis..... . . .
Sagal tr7man27@hotmail.com Posted Apr 9, 2011, 3:01 am	Awesome analysis, and I'd definitely like to see the how different chassis affect acceleration, as I think a Vampire or Buccaneer chassis accelerates faster than a Voyager or Windy II, but your test could tell us for sure. Let me know if you need any help. Sagal
Groove Champion Posted Apr 9, 2011, 4:23 am	Thanks for the test! I like your method as well.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 9, 2011, 5:24 am	Original Post updated with 1.8L engine info. Oh, and thanks for the feedback!
*Tinker* Posted Apr 9, 2011, 8:43 am	sweet, this post should be stickied
Checkers Posted Apr 9, 2011, 9:21 am	Tink's right, for once. If anything in the forums is worth stickying, this is it.
Marrkos Posted Apr 9, 2011, 5:01 pm	Engine Comparison Talk Page Engine Comparison Page
*Longo* Posted Apr 9, 2011, 5:03 pm	Marrkos said: Engine Comparison Talk Page Engine Comparison Page Good job with the Wiki as always Marrkos
Oscoda Posted Apr 12, 2011, 3:13 am	The Paranoid Tourist said: Ah, this reminds me. At some point I'm going to run vehicles of identical weight and engine but different chassis..... .  .    . Would be nice to directly compare the Phoenix and Sunrise acceleration.  The Scorpions with their 2.0l seem to have magic acceleration...  Maybe it is the chassis, maybe it is NPC magic.
Checkers Posted Apr 12, 2011, 3:36 am	Oscoda said: Would be nice to directly compare the Phoenix and Sunrise acceleration.  The Scorpions with their 2.0l seem to have magic acceleration...  Maybe it is the chassis, maybe it is NPC magic. IIRC, the Sunny only weighs 1450? It could go pretty fast with a 2L if a player drove one. That said, Flash it ain't.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 12, 2011, 5:30 am	I'm thinking of running several chassis with 3.2L engines. I'll see what I can come up with. The beauty of the 3.2L is that it fits well in a pickup, flash, various muscles, Apache/Landrunner, and even the hotrod. Assumably, the relative acceleration of these vehicles with the 3.2L would be the same scaled up or down. This will be more for fun than anything, but it will show which chassis have added acceleration built in somehow. It will also show if some have a quicker "low gear." The tricky part will be getting them all to weigh the same....
joemcfarnham Posted Feb 12, 2020, 6:09 pm	Reviving this thread so maybe one day it can be completed with the larger engines.