Vehicle Efficiency Improvements
 

I want to try to list steps that car makers could/should take to improve the fuel efficiency, in approximate order of cost: The most obvious improvement to cars, would be to mold the plastic on the front of the vehicle to be smooth and round, with grill openings that are sized (and placed) only as required [...] Related posts:

1. Volkswagen GX3 Reverse Trike Concept Vehicle
2. BMW Steps Up Luxury Fuel Efficiency Game with 57 MPG Diesel 3-Series
3. One Global Emissions and Efficiency Regulation to Rule Them All

More...

that is a long list to go through.. it seems your revolving around an inline four or other crazy low torqued engine.

my list to fix it?

1. add 3 main boxer. let the aero babble go to rest.

imagine only using 2% of fuels economy, and 1% of that is just getting an inline four to stop playing with itself.

aero is not the error, else we'd be shaped like wings to run, tress would not look like they are upside down, plants would have heavy buds in the earth...

energy is in the wrong place in other words....

My list is one think..fix the damn internal combustion engine once and for all.

SVOboy -

I think there should should be a button or a rotating dial thingy on the dashboard for "eco mode" versus "performance mode". The cost to the manufacturer would be the control on the dashboard and R&D programming in the ECU/PCM. Might need a little more space for different fuel maps and programming. But, I suspect they have plenty of space in the computer to work with right now. This may also require multiple EPA MPG compliance tests. The idea is to be able to make the car palatable to the "I want more HP" buyer and the "I want a thrifty commuter-mobile" buyer at the same time.

CarloSW2

CARLOSW2,

You make a good point, but out of the masses, how many would understand the button?
the prob;em that any manufacture has is the lowest common denominator consumer.

What seems obvious to us on this forum is not to the average consumer.

Certainly the newer FE models tend to have a 'sporty' appeal as opposed to the first econ-geek looking cars.

I'm sure that some engineer in deluth is cringing at a blocked grille!!!

I have that on my car now.

There is a "SPORT" option which alters the shift points on the (GM auto 4L60E) transmission and the injection cycle etc to give a more aggressive driving style.

When the button is "OFF" the normal mode is economy.

Also many makers now fit computers which "learn" the driver's main style of driving and adapt the engine / gearbox to suit.

Pete.

:thumbup:I should have qualified my answer. My current car InfinitiQ45 also has a 'smart TCM' that learn haw I drive and adjust to my patterns. I give that one item credit for my initial good mpg.
There is also an information system that includes mpg information. also tire pressure which helps me because I dont have to get uot to check!!!!:thumbup:
My point was that to translate this down to the masses will reguire some work.


Also, I had the same button on my previous Toyota Avalon. I really could not tell the difference....

My parents' '86 Toyota Camry had an Economy/Power push-button switch on the dash. Their '98 Avalon has the same switch.

My "Economy/Power switch" is between my ears, and easily transferred from one vehicle to another. :)

The one on the right is my econo/performance switch.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...-foot-feed.jpg

I use the one to the far left, too... have to use the right hand in tandem to switch between performance and fifth gear.

I'm callin BS, Frank Lee.




(I can't believe that I stick up for your good image.....redneck.....and you have CHROME pedals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused ::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused :)
edited after relooking at pic


Heck Frank Lee......you got CARPET and A MATCHING FLOORMAT

Not to worry!

It's a borrowed Google image!

My red-nekkedness should still be intact. :thumbup:

Hi,

I have been meaning to try and organize The List in a way that shows what "kind" of an improvement it is:

A car has one basic function: it rolls over the ground and moves people and things.

The two main "kinds" of improvements I am thinking of are: passive improvements of the rolling function -- so this would include reducing rolling resistance, and reducing drag and other friction.

The second "kind" are improvements are in the energy input -- so these include improvements to the power plant.

I think that the first kind are the most important, and they have to be done in order to get the most out out of the second kind.

Up until now, most cars are designed by making a vehicle how ever you want to, and then throwing a big enough engine at it to move it. If on the other hand, a vehicle was designed from the ground up to do the main thing you need it to as well as possible, and then use the best power plant that you can to get the job done; is the way we must go in the future.

Seriously, the manufacturers are well aware of all those things. As a matter of fact, THEY discovered them, THEY developed them, THEY tested them... then they opted to use to various degrees or ignore those developments as MARKETING decided.

I disagree that cars are designed by "making a vehicle however you want to". It's just that they are not terribly interested in "our" segment- in particular "my" segment- as we don't spend much money.

Hi Frank,

On the list, as I originally wrote it (in the blog) starts with the inexpensive stuff and works it way (approximately) up to the expensive stuff.

If the major car companies already know all this stuff, then they are successfully ignoring it! Using my Scion xA as an example (since I am familiar with it) they could have done much of what I have done for virtually zero additional cost:

The front cooling openings are about 4X bigger than they need to be. Closing them alone would boost the EPA rating (which is 27/30/34) up by 15-20% and cost virtually nothing.

They could have designed much tighter wheel openings.

They could have put a 3.56:1 final drive in, (rather than the 4.31:1) and just not offered cruise control, unless they used the super low final drive; or just "make" you shift.

They could have made the A/C optional/defeatable in the defrost mode.

They could have lowered the floor in the hatch area, to provide better aero and bunch more storage area at the same time.

They could have exhaust vents for cabin ventilation air that help "suck" air out, and provide more effective cooling passively.

They could coat the window glass with low-e to reduce the heat gain.

I am postulating that all of these would cost virtually the same to produce -- and they just got lazy and "forgot" how to make a better more efficient design. And as I've written before, the fact that car companies redesign cars every year, just for the sake of having a new model to sell is stupid, and frankly, is a lot of why they are in so much trouble now.

They design arbitrary, "pretty face" cars so they can point to the changes and sell more cars -- rather than making evolutionary, functional improvements that are real substantial improvements in the function, and add to the longevity of the car!

Yes, they are ignoring it, with premeditation! Car companies do not want their cars to be as efficient as possible. They want to leave some wiggle room for three reasons:

1. So they can easily and cheaply comply to newer fe/emissions standard when they show up,
2. So they can make eco versions and sell them for more than the base model (eg Peugeot 207 Economique),
3. So they can tweak the fleet's mpg and say "See, we're trying real hard and we're getting better".

Grille openings are for two things: looks and worst case scenerios (highspeed, desert, uphill, A/C, full load + trailer, etc.).
But then larger aftermarket wheels wouldn't fit.
The drive ratio is a compromise between performance and fe.
You must be joking, that would be too easy...
Extra costs, which most people won't notice when their A/C is on all the time.

I agree with you!

Larger aftermarket wheels are combined with lower profile tires and the overall diameter does not change much.

Every other model Toyota sells with the exact same engine and transmission gets the 3.56:1 final drive?

I am not joking about the A/C -- I pull the fuse to get better FE in the winter. I have to be able to melt ice on the windshield...

I'll bet with better ventilation and with low-E glass, that we would not need A/C in much of the USA. So the cost of the low-E would be more than offset by that -- and the weight savings would be a good thing, too.

Lowest aero CD.

Lowest rolling resistance tires.

These are obvious.

The power train is where the best improvements can be made.

Capacitive storage of engine produced energy, regardless of the primary fuel consuming source.

Battery electric
Diesel
Ic
Steam
Others

Infinitely Variable Transmissions.
Allow precise applications of energy to compensate for overall losses. Storage of energy and IVT's allow application and recovery of energy to be highly efficient as well as very effective at regeneration.

Electrical regeneration is very poor efficiency wise, generally recognized as in the range of 30%. Hydraulic regeneration is currently approaching 80%.

If hydraulic drives can get to 85+% then you are matching the efficiency of conventional drive trains while having the capability to apply and recover energy to the vehicle without compromising maximum engine efficiency. This is a proven technique for separating engine efficiency from vehicle efficiency.

Consumable fuel should only be used to restore capacitive energy reserves, regardless of the consumable energy source.

Capacitive storage allows the vehicle to pulse&glide itself automatically without any driver input. Make the vehicle P&G itself.

Capacitive storage using hydraulic accumulators is currently at 99% (not a misprint) efficiency. You can not get better than that, and batteries will never do the job.

Step one is launch assist, using the undriven wheels and a small accumulator that has just enough capacity to store the energy from a single 60-0 stop. The stored energy, reapplied to the vehicle at 85% efficiency means that portion of the next acceleration event will require no fuel to be used. This applies even to electrically driven vehicles and could be the range extending solution to the electric car. This is especially true in urban stop and go scenarios where electric cars will be utilized, while battery technology is advancing to the point where it eventually will replace IC primary power sources.

While current electric vehicle advocates think there is no necessity for a power train, most researchers realize that some form of transmission will be necessary to allow downsizing of the primary electric motor drive.

The problem is any transmission has to be extremely efficient or the benefits will not outweigh the losses involved.

This is why I advocate accumulators, or flywheels for capacitive energy storage. Long term storage in vehicles is an unnecessary capacity. The key is to be able to apply and recover inertial losses in a very short period of time, at an extremely high rate of efficiency.

Accumulators and flywheels have life expectancies measured in decades, while batteries are measured in thousands of cycles. Bladder type accumulators are easily rebuild able.
Batteries are very expensive to replace, and when that is considered as offsetting the fuel saved the payback period is a very long time, if ever.

My in-wheel IVT design is the result of knowledge dating back to 1970, when I first read about an Opel Kadett wagon that got 124 MPG while averaging 26 MPH, very close to the current EPA city cycle average speed. To achieve that mileage in a car that would probably get 35MPG if driven normally, makes it obvious that the dramatic increase in mileage was due to more than increasing the engines efficiency, by close to 100%.

Argonne labs is currently working on engine designs, with a goal of achieving 60% efficiency, This will require some form of energy conversion from wasted heat energy losses from the engine, as well as operational tactics that eliminate any inefficient operation of the engine.

Cars should be made simple, with plug in accessory capabilities. The basic platform would be the most basic transportation, with all accessories being plug & play. This allows the purchaser to chose exactly the accessory packages they desire, and upgrading to more accessories is a very simple job.

The next generations will consider vehicles as just another appliance. I see fuel economies in 2200 pound 4 passenger cars approaching 150 MPG in 20 years. If battery technology ever replaces oil based fuels then the changeover to all electric will be complete within 20 years of that event.

regards
Mech

Better/smaller fuel tanks. I have a 16 gallon tank on my PT and have never put in more then 12 but have run out of gas and put in 12.5. I have never put more then 10.5 in a 13 gallon tank on Mazda Protege. By hypermilling I fill up my 13/10 gallon tank every two months. That means for 1 month I'm hauling around 5-6 gallons or 36 lbs.

SO are you saying that if you had a 10 gallon tank you'd fill up with 10 gallons? Or would you only drive for 8-9 gallons, then fill up? See what happens?

Why not just use more of the fuel in your tank before filling up? 36lbs is really nit picking when it comes to efficiency, especially if a large percentage of your driving is highway.

Also, if you fueled up after, say, 12 gallons of the 13 you have, you'd be stopping at the fuel station 20% less, saving you time and fuel economy (less stops to make).

No I ran the tank dry and was only able to put in 12.5 of 16 gallon tank. Filled to top of filling tube. Does this mean my fuel pickup leaves 3.5 gallons in the tank and I'm constanly carring around 20lbs of unuasable fuel. I want the vehicle designers to do it correctly.

Your fuel pickup is very unlikely to leave that much fuel in the tank. When you "run it dry", it's VERY CLOSE to being dry. If there is that much fuel being left in the tank, there is a problem with your fuel system.

Sounds more like you don't know how to top off your tank, my experience, especially on my father motorhome is that certain Gas Pumps blow gas in the tank rapidly even on the slowest setting, as a result if you fill to first click you actually can put in a LOT more gas if you try.

My Buick is only a little north of 3/4 tank if I fill to first click at most gas stations. Nothing like a 500 gallon per minute fuel flow rate.

Food For Thought.

:eek::eek:

I should have put a LoL after that but it does seem that way, some of the pumps around here at the slowest setting blow in at what would be the full on setting at another gas pump. Its VERY irritating and makes it almost impossible to get a full tank of fuel, let alone top off!

My fathers motorhome has a fuel fill on both sides of the vehicle and some of the semi pumps not only blow it back on you it would even go out the overfill out the other side. We end up holding the thing upside down then it usually doesn't shoot out when we are at an offensive pump..

If I got sprayed with fuel at a fuel station, I'd likely call a HAZMAT team in to clean it up, then sue the station for unsafe equipment and personal injury/property damage.

That stuff eats your paint.