Let the modding begin! (How US carmakers will meet the 35 mpg CAFE target)
 

The Big 3 threatened (comments from Lutz in particular come to mind) that the only way forward to higher fuel economy would be through expensive technology (hinting at hybrids), and that consumers would pay the price.

But as we already know, there's still a lot of low-hanging fruit yet to be picked:

Source: Wired - How Detroit Will Reach 35 mpg

IHMO the biggest improvement would be to wean American drivers off vehicles that have twice the power needed.

My '89 Euro-beast weighs about 3070 lb and the engine is 115 hp. Any car currently on the US market has a much higher hp/weight ratio - '07 Camry 4-cyl is 158 hp/3263 lb. And the V6 is 268 hp!

True that before mods, I rarely would win the stop light derby in this car, but so what? It always gets me where I'm going.

I have to admit that turning all cars into total gutless powerless slugs would turn the public against the industry. It happened in the '70's; people couldn't wait for more powerful cars to be available again. But 268 hp for a 3300 lb car? People actually think they need that to do battle with freeway traffic or something. Let them learn other ways to get through life.

OK, I vented my spleen there.

Makers definitely need to use all the low-hanging fruit that's available. I'm sure all the items mentioned in the quote have good potential.

One thing I've noticed is semi-bogus oem front fairings or air dams. Many of them are so full of holes and pockets of various types that they don't help smooth the air flow as much as they could. They could be better.

^
But some larger vehicles like vans and stuff would get even more terrible mileage if they didn't have the power. Some trucks that have a v8 get better fuel economy than the v6 version cause they don't have to work as hard to do the same amount of work. True that we don't need all the power, but I think that if we had more torque vs. power we could do better. The AMC 4.0L I6 in my Jeep Makes 190 rated horsepower, but that is because the nice torquey drivetrain makes me never have to do much to get the car to move. They "upgraded" the 4.0L in 96', which got 185 rated horsepower, even less than before, but they got a good boost in torque, the force required to get something moving.

The 06' V Dubb GTi has the peak in torque at 1800 RPM, which is great for city driving and less throttle when accelerating. The less we have our foot on the gas pedal the better, and with more gears we could have a high final drive gear ratio, and a low 1st gear ratio. It'd be a good start at least.

MetroMPG -

I never heard of "dual-clutch manual transmissions" before :

How Dual-clutch Transmissions Work
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/dual-c...ansmission.htm
EDIT: Hrmmmm, on second thought, I don't like this. I won't be able to coast in neutral anymore, :( .

CarloSW2

OK, I didn't differentiate between hp vs. torque. Torque is more significant in just about every meaningful sense.

For trucks that need to be large and have large load capacities of course the needs are different.

But many large vehicles drive to work daily, carrying only a driver and a lunch or a few papers. I just don't buy the concept that these vehicles need to have a load capacity of one or two tons, and that the engines need to move that load as if the weight weren't there.

I'm still driving a beast I bought when gas was $1.60. I bought my first Volvo wagon when I had a business that required me to be able to lug stuff around and it served very well. Now with gas above $3 and climbing, my next car will be smaller and get better FE - but that's off in the future somewhere.

Meanwhile, I'm doing what I think most of us are doing - attempting to get the best possible FE from our current vehicles.

Unfortunately, "the weaning" is only going to happen (for the majority) when fuel costs as a fraction of the household budget become a pressing issue. We're not there yet in North America.

You know what? I think the writer got the terminology slightly wrong. They're really semi-automatic manuals, or automated manuals.

As for the neutral question - it's a good point. I know, for instance, that the Canadian market smart cars (single clutch automated manuals) can't do ICE-off coasting. (The problem isn't getting neutral, strictly speaking. It's that once there you can't restart the ice if you kill it - until you stop & go to park). Not sure what the situation will be with the next gen ('08) cars.

But I'm thinking you've got to be able to select neutral, even with the dual clutch units, otherwise you couldn't tow or push them.

That sure sounds like an urban myth to me! (But I'm willing to stand corrected if you can point me to EPA figures that show this.)

They have always used that fear tactic to avoid having sensible choices foisted upon them. Meanwhile look at the hole they've dug themselves into. BTW, who else do they suggest will pick up the bill if they have it their way?

The reality is that more fuel efficient vehicles are lighter, cheaper to produce (enabling more competition, as you won't need an absolutely massive industrial plant to make one), less capable of fashion statements (since good designs will converge on the one form as form follows function) and for the same profit margin, generate less profit. It's Detroit's way of saying "We see where this is going, our shareholders won't be happy if we aim to become the next Kawasaki or Suzuki, and neither will my salary as CEO etc".

Where this is going ultimately is velomobiles for regular transport, powered velomobiles capable of reaching 80kph or so with a carbon neutral kind of fuel like biodiesel, with probably a hybrid drivetrain. For carting heavy items, trains and ships for long haul, perhaps streamlined hybrid trucks for the short haul.

Sounds like that comes from a classic up-sale tactic rather than the facts. If what you say is true (proof please) it could only be true if the bigger engine was much more efficient than the smaller which is possible but not likely. The reasons for a smaller engine (given similar engine designs) in the same vehicle being more fuel efficient than a larger one, have mainly to do with pumping losses, friction, rotational inertia, and weight. For the same HP power output a smaller engine would have less of all these.

This is a general statement but given a very efficient V8 and a very inefficient V6 you could prove me wrong in that particular case. ( I wouldn't put it past Detroit to do this.)

yeah. I think He may be confusing fuel economy in big diesel trucks and smaller gasoline versions. The fuel has more energy density and the compression makes it efficient to run them at certain speeds. The torque thing is true. A lot of new engines are actually either direct inject. Or they have variable cylinder firing. The Chrysler Hemi™ can shut down and run on 4 cylinders for light load highway driving. With regards to torque. I would say that a certain diesel truck would generally require less fuel for driving on a flat surface than a gasoline version. You can think of the higher compression, longer stroke, to generally move the parts a further distance for the same amount of gas. This translates, in turbo diesel GM type motors with around 450HP, will have a condition that opens the waste gate the boost goes down and as a result the injectors put in less fuel, you get a charge that can be timed to go off at a certain time and you get a smaller more direct flame which will still send the engine around 1 time for each of the 4 cycles.

They are, more or less, the same. It really just comes down to semantics. And CarloSW2's point is valid; dual clutch systems do affect one's ability to perform certain hypermiling techniques. My former car was (for all intents and purposes) a detuned version of my current car, but it had a dual-clutch transmission. Even though my former car was rated as having better fuel economy than my current car, it wouldn't have allowed me drive in the manner that has garnered me the biggest mileage gains in my current car.

In my opinion, these dual clutch systems come down market appeal. Driving with paddle shifters makes people feel like race car drivers (as a result, these transmissions might indirectly result in worse ACTUAL mileage). Don't want to drive in manual mode? Simple. Hit a button, and it drives like an automatic. A completely anemic driving experience.

Now, in terms of hitting the CAFE's 35 mpg across the fleet, I don't think that's going to be very hard for them at all. When the new Mustang gets 31 mpg with ~300 hp and has the aerodynamics of a parachute, I think they just need to make some small steps. Direct injection, LRR tires, and the aero mods should me more than enough to take them to 40 mpg pretty easily.

The hard part will be the truck/van/suv fleet. I am personally not opposed to having slightly different restrictions for vehicles with > 2,000 lb payload capacity; > 5,000-10,000 lb towing capacity; and seating for six or more passengers. The last is the most dubious on the list, and despite regulations, those vehicles could still be driven around by a single individual with no cargo whatsoever. :rolleyes:

I think we're already starting to see some of these changes. Ford's 2012 Focus has an "active grill shutter" - basically a grill block that is open when cooling is needed, and closed on highway trips for FE.

I bet we'll see some pickups come with tonneau covers stock, rather than as an add-on. I seem to see a lot of Honda Ridgelines with a hard tonneau - maybe they're stock already.

I think buyers just need to be educated on how much money they will waste per year in fuel if they decide to go for a big vehicle they don't need. If people bought cars they needed and not ones they wanted to look cool in, there would be about 80% less big suv and pickups on the road which would cut down on our dependance of fossil fuels

I head a saying before and it's totaly true, something like "we vote every day, when we buy something we say that we support this product and if we don't buy it we can get rid of it"

I agree. I think that a power/weight ratio of around 20 is good enough for most vehicles....except for cargo carriers?

That means a 2500 lb car would be limited to around 130-135 HP....(2500/130 = 19.2) Power over this should be taxed? Or the CAFE standards should be raised?

I realize this is UN-AMERICAN...where 5% of the worlds population uses 25% of the worlds energy...we are god's chosen people and are meant to have all the energy we want....just ask the right? No matter if we steal it or trash the planet? God is on our side and that is just that.....:p In fact...no matter what we do as a country...it is just plain....AOK! :thumbup:

Folks, the Nissan 'Leaf' gets 99MPGe. The Mitsubishi 'I' gets 114MPGe (if I recall correctly). The Illuminati Motor Works '7' gets 207MPGe. The Edison2 'VLC' gets 110MPGe, and the 'VLCe' gets 245MPGe. The VW 'XL-1' gets about 260MPGe on the NEDC Combined cycle.

"e"

It's easy to rage against the evil right - consider working to solve the problem by educating the ignorant folks from all parties. I'm probably the furthest right of anyone on this site and I'm cruising around in an 18 year old rusty 50mpg Civic that most people (left and right-wing) laugh at. Why? I realized I could save a lot driving an efficient car. I didn't need a Marxist gov't to force me to do that. Free-market principles at work, I'm greedy and I learned about fuel savings on this site. Consider my left-wing coworkers, one commutes in a 17mpg Dodge Ram, the other just bought a ~17mpg Jeep Grand Cherokee - simply because they can. The one's an ultra-liberal/environmentalist, but to quote, "its so convenient" to have an SUV. I've tried sharing what I've learned and how much I've saved (thousands of dollars), neither has any interest. Education, my friend, for all parties.

Stop-start technology would save fuel in a huge way, but as I understand it, cars fitted with stop-start don't show any increased EPA mpg numbers, due to the way the test is carried out. So few vehicles sold in the US have stop-start.
Whereas, in Europe, the official emissions figures are arrived at using a test which gives an advantage to stop-start, so you find it being fitted to more and more new cars.

That'd be a great way to do more in the US easily. Doesn't (to my knowledge) require massive investments in new/untested technology, and can be adapted to current platforms being built. As much time as people in the US spend at stoplights, it'd save a lot. Someone on here once posted research saying 20% of all fuel is wasted at red lights.

My 84CJ is rated at 115hp and about 3000lbs, it can do 75mph on the flat, it has trouble maintaining speed with hills, but thats because most of its power is taken up by the fact that it has the aero of a cinderblock. With the gearbox I want to put in it, if I can get the tires to stick it will be able to climb a tree.

Its more of a case of cherry picking the data. Under very specific circumstances the vehicle with the larger engine will get better FE.

a good example of this would be chevy 1500 series trucks. the mileage is almost identical for the 1999-2005 ish models ranging from the 4.3L V6 4.8L V8 to the 5.3LV8.

This makes we wish we could just go with the ISO standards.
Get rid of the US standards and many more options become available that actually save fuel !
Unfortunately Americans are too big-headed to change.

Sorry, but I didn't see anything political in the post you were quoting. Just a rant against "Americans" who feel that they are entitled to use as much fuel as they can.

An attitude which too many of us seem to have, regardless of political leanings. Which was the point of your post, wasn't it?

Hmm, let me just crawl back under this rock over here.... :D

-soD

My post was in response to the poster's previous comments that ...we are god's chosen people and are meant to have all the energy we want....just ask the right? No matter if we steal it or trash the planet? God is on our side and that is just that . My understanding is the poster blames some right-wing religious group for the situation. As some_other_dave also summarized, its definitely a bipartisan problem.

brucepick's comment was posted four years ago and it's still true. One easy way for a manufacturer to get its fleet average to 35 mpg is to sell more economy cars and fewer juggernauts. The way to achieve that is to increase customer demand for efficient cars--cars that are smaller, lighter, and less powerful than the high-profit-per-unit cars the manufacturers want to sell us. The manufacturers are strongly motivated to sell us more car than we need, for the same reason McDonald's wants you to supersize your fries: there's bigger money to be made by selling bigger cars (or meals).

It would sure help if motor fuel was expensive enough to make people feel really stupid if they buy inefficient cars. $3 a gallon was enough to make Hummers ridiculous--twenty years ago when they first came out (and fuel was cheap) they were pretty cool and their drivers were envied and admired, but for the last five+ years they've been the butt of jokes. People didn't quit buying them because they couldn't afford the fuel (a 2006 H1 cost over a hundred grand; if you could afford one you could afford to put fuel in it), they quit buying them because buying a Hummer makes you look Really Stupid.

Unfortunately, fuel prices have to go considerably higher before the average overpowered oversized automobile looks sufficiently stupid to demotivate purchasers. I think gasoline has to hit $5 a gallon before Ford and Chrysler's flagship Mustang and Charger (at 17 mpg each) look Really Stupid.

I know what would work--a 100% fuel tax, which would bump fuel at the pump to five bucks a gallon or so. Put the tax money into improving (or at least maintaining) the country's transportation infrastructure; we'd have good roads again, we'd keep more of our money in America, and I'll bet in three years we'd have a 35 mpg national fleet.

Why in the 70s/80s did my parents, my 2 brothers and I fit in a Chevy cavalier/Hyundai excell but now it takse an Excursion/Escallade/Van to do the same ? My brothers are both 5'11" 190lbs.
Dad had a F250 for the camper/boat/logs that was rarely driven empty.

The problem is, Americans have been told that they can have it all, and so, that is the expectation. We operate with the assumption that we might, possibly, do anything we can think of in the future: Move large furniture; transport a soccer team; inexplicably find ourselves entered into the Indy 500.

My friend and I were discussing this in reference to electric vehicles, and we came to the conclusion that EVs would not be a viable option for Americans until those vehicles were able to transport four people 400 miles on a single charge. Forget the fact that almost no American requires that capability regularly (a rental car a few times a year would be a much better option), the fact that they might, one day, need a vehicle capable of doing that is enough to drive the average American away from EVs.

In all reallity 250-300 miles would be all that is needed if you take the model of drive for 4 hours then take an hour break to eat/relax while the car charges. That would also allow the charging current to be drastically reduced to the 10's of kw.

55mph*4hours =220miles (plus much less energy required)
75mph*4hours = 300miles (1.45 hours further traveled vs 55)

Many people may be willing to make that much of a sacrifice provided having charging stations at where they are going to stop.

I'm just stating what an average American's perception might be, and thus far, very few have been willing to make the types of sacrifices you describe. Granted, charging stations aren't readily available, but we're kind of suffering from the chicken/egg scenario right now. It seems apparent, though, that investors aren't willing to take the gamble that Americans will be amenable to the idea of EV charging stations. Don't underestimate the power of convenience. :eek:

My wife and I are almost driving on trips that way as it is. It gives us a chance to stretch our legs, relax and get off the road for a little bit.

edit to add: It will take time, right now mass produced plug in hybrids are beginning to enter the market. As they and the occasional EV model become a larger percentage of the market the demand for charging stations will increase and the market will follow.

I don't know if taxation is the cure to fuel mileage. What have I heard, "40mpg is the new 30mpg?" Great, but for the average driver, that is 125 gallons a year. So even at your $5/gal gas, you are saving about $50 per month for driving a car that is less enjoyable/convenient/comfortable to drive. Car companies need to make cars people want to drive that just happen to be fuel efficient. I think that new Buick is a good example. Both versions are great cars at the same price, but the eco version will save the driver money. A civic hybrid is a great choice because it will save you money before the 60 month loan is up for all of the people who want a civic. The Cruze Eco costs more than the base but the fuel savings offset the nicer options after four years. That is what will get buyers on board: fuel savings that will let you afford a nicer car or save money. Let the buyer choose. Anything else is a lack of understanding of economics.