Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-17-2008, 03:21 PM   #101 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,738

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Prize delivered! Got some cool stickers too.

Thanks Xfi!

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-18-2008, 01:21 AM   #102 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,738

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Update: I came across a Technical Service Bulletin that officially approves using 5W-20 motor oil in the Escort. I never see it on the shelf at the parts store but it's out there.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2008, 02:09 AM   #103 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,738

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Re: supercapacitors
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause View Post
Overall, the idea is to get by with a smaller battery (i.e. one not required to put out 500+ CCA), route the energy to the supercapacitors with a lighter cable, and place the supercapacitors closer to the starter where a short section of heavy, thick cable can be used to lower impedence. Lowering system weight is essential when you are trying to get by without a battery.
Has this ever been done?

Re: VW trans oil
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause View Post
It is just an extremely low viscosity, non-synthetic transmission fluid that has passed industry protection levels. I forgot the exact scale that rates protection, but it ranked 4 out of 5. VW also makes a slightly thicker synthetic that has a lower viscosity when cold. It is costly, though. I'll find the link when I have more time.
How does it compare to ATF?

Re: Skirts AND belly pan
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause View Post
There are three primary reasons I can think of: yaw angle, spillover (for lack of a better term), and downforce. When I have more time, I'll describe each in more detail and with greater accuracy.

Yaw angle refers to the apparent air velocity direction under the vehicle. I need to refresh on the exact mechanism, but essentially high pressure air at the front underside of the vehicle tries to escape out the sides rather than flowing continuously back. This air travels obliquely to the direction of vehicle travel (which entails a energy loss in itself) and in doing so hits the wheels. While the front wheels show the greatest effect, the rear wheels are also affected. The wheels, which visually appear to have a small aerodynamic cross section, are much more dirty due to this oblique airflow. Skirts physically block off this phenomenon by removing the "easier" route for air to follow. Skirts allow the air direction to stay closer to the direction of vehicle motion.

Spillover is very similar to yaw angle, but it just describes the mixing of two regions of different pressure. Like the tips of wings, where high pressure air tries to rise up to the lower pressure upper surface, differences in pressure between the bottom of the vehicle and sides cause the direction of airflow to be altered. The more you change the air surrounding an aerodynamic body, the more drag you create.

Lastly, as Lotus had done with their open wheel race cars, side skirts allow the creation of a venturi under the vehicle. While the venturi would create downforce to counteract the lift generated on vehicles, I am not 100% sure whether this counteraction would decrease cL. Lift, as measured by the lift coefficient, brings rise to induced drag. As unintuitive as it might seem, cars generate lift like airplane wings and create the same type of vortexes. I suppose at the very least it would allow corners to be taken at higher speeds, lowering the use of brakes...
...at any rate, the lowest drag vehicles tested, such at the Probes, EV1, etc., only have pans, no skirts. Skirts basically work in conjunction with air dams. Air dams and skirts function to wall off the underside from air flow, rendering pans moot.

Re: HID lights
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause View Post
It depends on how cheaply you can get OEM headlights. HID technology is old enough that they will probably start showing up in junkyards soon. I believe headlights currently cost $300-500 for a pair. As far as gas prices are concerned, it can either be thought of as a long term investment to hedge against rising energy costs or it can be added later when the technology is cheaper, parts are more available, and gas prices are high enough to lead to an immediate payback.

I suppose resistors could be used, but they are inefficient (they generate heat, which equals lost energy) and 10w incandescent light bulbs will not be very bright. 55w incandescents may pass for those in well lit areas, but the true benefit of HID is that they produce more light at 55w than an incandescent at 65w. Logically, you could feed HID less energy (say, 45w) and have the same amount of light as the original lamp. Additionaly, as far as I have seen, HID's even outperform LED's in Lumens/watt. No need to wait for or waste money on bleeding edge technology.

10-20w won't save much by itself, but if it allows you to run without an alternator you will reap huge savings (MetroMPG showed a 10%+ increase). 10-20w may not seem like a lot, but when running without an alternator, I'll take whatever I can get.
Firstly, I don't even know what the operating wattage of HID systems is, but assuming it's 45 or 55 vs. 65 for incandescent, I don't even need to work out the equations to know that that $300-$500 technology won't pay off re: fe increases in this lifetime.

And, I never said anything about 10 watt headlights.

Re: Double-clutching
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause View Post
Two ways: lower clutch/synchro wear and the ability to run a lower viscosity MTF.

The section should have really read Rev-matching/Double clutching, but the logic is that by matching transmission and engine speed you lower clutch and synchro wear. Double clutching is only used when decellerating, but downshifting is one of the areas of greatest clutch and synchro wear, I believe. Prolonging the life of a clutch may not be worth much, but it is not tough to do and every penny counts. Synchros, while long lived, are generally extremely expensive to replace (if you don't just replace the transmission itself).

The ability to run lower viscosity oil may be contentious, but the logic is that double clutching removes the reliance on synchros. The biggest complaint I've seen of running low-weight oil, especially with people who have worn transmissions, is grinding when going into gear. This grinding is generally caused by worn synchros failing to rev-match mating gears. Rev-matching/Double clutching, as done in the days of the Model T, is completely unreliant on synchros. In the end, it is a personal choice of choosing whether to risk damaging gears by not providing enough lubrication. When you have an old car whose transmission costs $100, the choice is easier. +1 for old cars...
I think most manual trannys are stout enough to last the life of most cars (I know that Metro synchros are kinda puny though). All that double-clutching might wear out clutch components earlier though! LOL

Who here has double-clutched? I have, and it's annoying to do especially if you don't HAVE to do it. If you think it's main value is on decel, the simple solution is to not use engine braking- for most of us engine braking is not in the hypermiling repertoire anyway.

I know you didn't hold out the "T" as THE example, but they have planetary transmissions- no clutching or hand shifting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause View Post
My logic is to install an injector kill switch, put the car into first, let out the clutch and hit the starter...instant electric car. Obviously this is taxing the starter and battery, but I figure going to the junkyard, finding a couple starters cheap, and learning to rebuild them negates any wear. I still need to sort out the battery issue, but Lead Acid batteries are so ancient I'm putting my money on newer types (NiMH, Li-ion, etc).

Buying starters and rebuilding them may be mildly expensive, but I figure it is a hobby that saves me money rather than pure economics...plus, I like to think it is a long-term investment that will pay off. The way gas prices are these days, it might not be that long term...
I'm trying to imagine the situation where using the starter to turn over an engine that isn't intended to run AND propel the car at the same time 1: saves energy; 2: makes sense. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to crank engines. Also starter gears and drives are not made for that kind of loading.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 03:43 AM   #104 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
OK Lots of ideas. First some of these ideas are only useful if you are a good DIY type of guy for some serious hacks.

I am good at the AERO stuff so thats where my ideas will roam with. Skirt everything. Is it UNIBODY or Body On Frame? The following ideas will really only work well with Body on Frame so I will assume its that.

First thing is do you want LOOKS or Performance? I would start by gutting the interior. remove all panels and replace with Lycra Skins. Won't look like crap but won't have the nice lines of molded panels will dump 50-60 pounds easy. Remove carpets add single layer of rino lining. Again not pretty but should drop another 30 pounds Headliner too delete but its REALLY light I would prefer to keep it or your gonna really roast in the summer. Full size Spare? replace with donut. My commute is long I would never go spareless.

Jack? if its a hydro replace with a porsche aluminum jack another 10-15 pounds saved.

Remove ALL seats except the drivers seat. If your good at this and the dimensions permit this get some Minivan captains chairs. you know the Fold and Go removable seats? GET the floor MOUNTS as well. Remove the guts in your car and add those mounts you got from the minivan. NOW you can add fold and go removable seats to your car. Only have the number of seats you NEED in the car stow the rest in the garage. On some cars removing the seats is a LOT of mass!

You can have some SERIOUS fun with the front clip of the car. Remove the bumper. Install some "extensions out the front for support (aluminum) and start gluing on the Blue Foam from Home depot and get that sawzall and sander out. HAVE FUN. Remember you want the shape of the nose of an airliner NOT a jet. Highspeed needs SHARP while "any" speed your will ever see in that car is aerodynamically very slow. At slow speeds the bulbous but smooth front is LOWER drag than a sharp pointy front.

Once you got a nice shape Fiberglass it and your done. Paint to suit. If you wanted to you could also REMOVE the foam from the inside just leaving the fiberglass shell. In fact if you did this carefully you could REUSE that foam in case you ever needed to make another bumper.

Have you tried virtually SEALING the engine compartment? how hot does it get? whats the highest ambient temp where you can keep the engine temps safe?

you want to skin under the engine and seal the front completely. Ever see the skin of the SR-71 Blackbird? longitudinal ridges? add something like that in aluminum to the roof and run your coolant to the roof. Now you have the entire surface area of your roof for air cooling. Add in some peltier cooling and you JUST might be able to keep that engine cool with almost no external air flow. I have NOT tried this yet but you might be able to reverse peltier and use the HEAT of your engine to generate electricity to power the second peltier to cool your coolant. Not sure if that will work would not be efficient but any cooling with the otherwise wasted energy of your engine is bonus.

Delete the door handles and "smooth" the parasite drag points of your windows. Door Frames Windshield Frames. Delete passenger wiper Make driver wiper removable. Don't forget aero shell caps for the stubs.

Delete the antennae and install an internal antennae inside the windshield. Not as effective but your probably listening to MP3's anyway. Don't forget to fiber and fill the antennae mount locations.

Aeroshell both wheels. Banjoss (sp?) came up with an ingenious method to solve the front wheel turning issue that I am definitely going to have fun with!

Boat Tailing the rear is not good enough. REMOVE your hatch all together. Goto the junk yard. Get another hatch. GUT it. make it so its an empty flimsy frame. use the sawzall with gusto here :-) remember this is the junkyard spare nothing to lose!

Add some support struts out the back and have at it with the blue foam again. Cut a rough shape so you reduce how much blue foam you need. Finalize your boat tail shape. Make it aerodynamically seamless with the rest of the car.

Before starting with this I would create an aluminum frame to attack to your "gutted Frame" (in the end your going to get rid of as much of that original frame as you can in fact there is only 3 peices you want left. the 2 hinge mounts and the "lock" point at the bottom. Everything else you want eventually gone.

Mold release the entire thing and fiberglass the crap out of it. IF you can afford it go with a hybrid carbon kevlar weave instead of the fiberglass. Will be much more rigid and lighter by a LOT.

YOU COULD cut out and add a window. Me personally? leave it and add a camera at the rear top of the car. LCD rear view mirror. Same thing with the side view mirrors. Delete replace with cameras to LCD's on the dash.

Windows are important but how bout the rear door windows? do you really need them? if not SKIN them to remove that parasite drag. If you do not even need to see out them you can carbon them and remove the windows all together.

Mold in LED lighting for everything except the headlights. ADD LED lights to the headlight housings. There are times when you do NOT physically need headlights to see with but need them so OTHERS can see you (tunnels constructions when raining even (some states wipers on means HL's must be on) In those cases the LED's will be more than enough to meet the safety and legal requirements without the amp drain of the full head lamps.

Consider downgrading to some older headlamps where they are dimmer. on these the high beams are about as bright as todays NORMAL position lights. So when its unusually bright out your fine and when its really dark you turn on the highbeams. now your no brighter than you were before and can still see just fine. This is probably not worth the effort though so unless its easy drop it.

I have no idea if this is possible but its something I plan to try. Retrofitting something like an AC Compressor pully to the alternator. I am not sure "how" this clutch it engaged or disengaged. if its electrical perfect. Now you can HAVE an alternator but virtually erase its load when not needed by disengaging the clutch and it will stop spinning all together.

Replace all hard fans with electric fans. I have seem some mention electric water pump. Did not know this was possible. DO THAT too. I would consider DUAL pumps with some high tempt valves so you have a backup simply by flipping the valves and flipping a switch. With Y's you might not even need the valves just turn one off and the other on.

SOME engines can "move" water without a pump at all just not very well. in the winter you might even be able to turn it off but not likely if you seal up that engine compartment good enough.

Consider making your accessories "plug in" ie a few extra batteries and "plug in" at home. sure your now using power from the grid to run your accessories but THAT power is a lot cheaper and cleaner than the power your alternator would consume.

Was your car available with all wheel drive? if so consider getting the AWD rear axle and attaching an electric motor forklift style to it. A simple relay full power on off (IE no controller) use this to "assist" the ICE during acceleration to offset some of the otherwise LOW FE you would get during acceleration of hill climbing. If its powerful enough you might even be able to FAS to a stop and not even start up the gas engine until you have reached the limit of your EV motors speed capacity. Even if thats just 20mph thats 0-20mph that you had your ICE OFF !!

If your commute only includes a few full stops this might be doable with a very modest battery pack. I am working on trying to do this with my voyager.

I was also considering an "aerobrake" on the roof of my van. A rather sizable one even. If there is a tail wind I would "extend" this aerobrake and and steel some energy from the wind pushing me. While the gain is TINY over the lifetime of the car it would easily pay for itself as it would be very cheap to build if you can DIY well. Make it out of carbon so its nice and light. One way to do this is a WIND meter on the car. when the AIRSPEED is faster than your actually speed IE the wind is blowing from behind faster than you are driving then the aerobrake will ADD energy to your drive. Once your ground speed is equal to or greater than the tailwind you stow the aerobrake.

Not sure how much the gain would be but it might also be worth deploying as a big rig passes you. IE lets those eddy currents off the rear of the truck PUSH you a little more. The more aero your car the less benefit you will see from drafting.

This is getting a bit complex and is even beyond what I can build but its an idea. I am thinking side skirts that ALMOST touch the ground but that ride on tracks so they can move up and down. Hard linking these skirts to your suspension. So as your suspension compresses the skirts "rise up" an equal amount so they never "hit" the ground when you dip etc.. I have no idea if they can be rigged without a fast enough reaction time to void impacting the ground but assuredly this would let you get them CLOSER to the ground than you than you otherwise could.

Also do the same thing when you "boat tail" the rear ends of your tires into the aeroshell.

Remember always LIGHT WEIGHT. you do not want the added mass of an aeromod to eat up your FE gains with increased mass.

I would LOVE to skin the bottom of a car but am unsure how to deal with the hot exhaust? Suggestions? even if you aluminum skin it would not this now TRAPPED heat pose a significant fire hazzard to the now sealed underside of your car? Might be worth modding the car so its all skinned EXCEPT the tail pipe. Have a pipe bender make you a NEW set of exhaust pipes (if possible with your car ride height) so there are as few if not NO bends in the pipe as possible. IE straight back onces it enters the airstream to the rear of the car. Consider more expensive OVAL tubing so its FLATTER. Also weld an aluminum AEROSHELL to the front and rear of the muffler and cat so they are more aerodynamic.

So imagine remove your exhaust system. SKINNING the bottom of the car and now reinstalling your exhaust system on the outside of this skin. The Skin could be carbon mostly and aluminum anywhere withing 8 inches of the exhaust system.

if you can get the muffler and cat close enough you can merge them aerodynamically.

Here is a quickie drawing I made to describe this

http://www.nerys.com/stuff/aeromod1.gif

The other area of trouble will be the suspension. if your spring over your ok if your Independent A arm its going to be harder. You can either skin ignoring the a arms and AEROSHELL the a arms independently OR make your skin include enough volumetric space to accommodate the full travel of the A Arms. You will want some Drain holes at low points in the skin so you an pop then open now and then to make sure no water is gathering in there. That adds mass and promotes rust :-)

Find some aluminum rims. The fancy spider ones are a good choice since there a lot less metal in then so there lighter. Then skin them with a disc of carbon. Light & Aerodynamic. Steelies are usually heavier than aluminum rims but NOT always.

Go with LRR tires and get the skinniest ones you can safely use on the car. IF your car is torquey and you never see the mountains IE relatively flat terrain consider upping the diameter just a tiny bit. I gained 2+ mpg in my jeep doing this when I added the 31" mudders but they SLAUGHTER me when I go to the mountains :-) (yes I corrected for the equivalent gearing change in the larger tires IE I used the GPS to determine miles driven and adjusted the odometer accordingly. Mines needed almost a 10% change. IE it reports I go 10% less than I actually do. so when I go 10 miles my odo thinks I only went 9 miles.

This is good for steady state driving I am NOT sure how this will work with Hypermiling techniques it might make it worse. I am brand spanking new too hypermiling.

OK car itself. Power Steering? can you change this to manual? how big are you? even just changing the steering wheel (if this is pre airbag) to a 15" wheel may make it totally usable with the PS disabled.

Do they have ELECTRIC brake boosters? Would be nice if you can reduce the pulley belt accessory count to ONE the clutched alternator (not worth removing all together for safety reasons)

Smaller fuel tank? if your MPG is good going from a 20 gallon tank to a 10 gallon tank will make your car over 60 pounds lighter when full not counting the lighter fuel tank.

If you do exhaust work consider upgrading the exhaust system. The upgrades that increase power also usually increase Fuel Economy as well.

Also as someone on the first page said depending on luck and your skill level install a SMALLER engine might reap massive rewards especially if you lighten and aero mod the car enough!

IF your car is Body on Frame REMOVE each body part one at a time and consider making a carbon/fiberglass COPY of it!! Even keeping the parts that bolt and cutting away the parts you see from outside (the skin) to replace with carbon could dramatically reduce mass! this is a LOT of work and a LOT of carbon. but you could do ONE panel at a time. Bit by bit as funds permit.

Its almost 4 am here thats enough for now. I will see if I come up with any more later

Chris Taylor
Levittown PA USA
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 01:52 PM   #105 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Thats supposed to mean what?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 02:03 PM   #106 (permalink)
XFi
Driving NOW
 
XFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Perkasie, Pa
Posts: 189

Now - '07 Hyundai Accent GS

Xspire - '97 Ford Aspire
90 day: 47.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Easy now boys! (or girls)

Thanks for the write up Nerys
__________________
----------------------
XFi
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 02:08 PM   #107 (permalink)
XFi
Driving NOW
 
XFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Perkasie, Pa
Posts: 189

Now - '07 Hyundai Accent GS

Xspire - '97 Ford Aspire
90 day: 47.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Nerys, you put a lot of time and effort in your ideas! Thanks...some can be applied directly to this (or any other vehicle) and other ideas are in 'development' stage and are great to think about how to apply them. We should be here to encourage each other to 'think out loud' and bounce ideas off each other.

If you PM me a name and address I will send you out a sticker. Looks like you are right around the corner from me anyway!

Thanks again!
__________________
----------------------
XFi
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 02:15 PM   #108 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
No worries it takes an awful lot to make me mad. I do like pushing buttons from time to time though. I guess I am a bit sadistic :-) Huahahaha

Frank. Your reply is unfortunately utterly and completely useless. Its like me saying Frank your Wrong......... and thats it. Wrong about WHAT specifically?

IE what does not apply to this car and most importantly WHY? Without some feedback as to WHAT precisely does not apply to this car there is NOTHING to stop me from continuing to make apparently useless suggestions regarding the car.

In fact I can only think of exactly 1 thing that would be useless on this car and thats if its unibody taking off the panels and rebuilding them from carbon would not work since there are no panels to take off and those that CAN come off would be structural and unsafe to replace.

Otherwise everything else "should" in theory apply to any car on this planet.

SO when your going to bother to reply PLEASE add some details so the one your replying to can actually glean some useful information from that reply :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 03:21 PM   #109 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,738

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Point-by-point reply would take all day!

It's a unibody car, that should have been evident from the pics and description, and from general car knowledge if ya have it.

Escorts are very similar to my car:

All four door panels <20 lbs.
Front seats 36.5 lbs each.
Rear seat bottom 12 lbs.
Rear seat back 13 lbs.
Bottom trunk liner 2.5 lbs.
Spare tire cover 3.5 lbs.
Spare tire 20.5 lbs.
Jack 4 lbs.
Headliner 4.5 lbs.
Carpet- who knows. I'd only go 20 lbs. on that.

Total 153 lbs.

Then add back:

1 gallon Herculiner 10 lbs.
1 driver's seat- stock 36 lbs; mini-van captain's seat no doubt even more!
OK let's keep the jack 4 lbs.
Spare is already a donut- 20.5 lbs.

Total 70.5 lbs. added back, or 82.5 lbs dropped.

There's only one antenna.

That plastic front fascia is quite light. Better be careful to use little fiberglass and resin or the new part will end up heavier!

The roof as a radiator? With that being about 3" from my head, so much for A/C delete.

Aero shell caps for wiper stub LOL.

A/C clutch on alternator? Have you seen how heavy they are? They require power to operate too. Why not just turn alt field off?

... What hard fans?

Better at least circulate coolant if the engine compartment is all sealed up. Or, better have a spare cylinder head ready for WHEN you crack the original.

Add a few extra batteries (at 30.5 lbs. each) for accessories... now you have no passenger carrying capability due to no seats, but you are driving around with extra batteries and the whole car weighs 20 lbs. less than it did before.

They say for every 100 lbs. dropped fe increases 1-2%. So 20 lbs. off gives us .2-.4% fuel economy improvement; at a baseline of 40 mpg that would bring us to 40.008-40.16 mpg. Yeah.

Exactly how do we determine what the skinniest tires that can safely be used are?

How does an electric brake booster save gas vs a vacuum booster? It's a little car, only time brake boost might be a factor is when extensively P&Ging, how about no booster at all?

Exhaust work that increases power does not necessarily increase fe. Most of that stuff is geared towards moving the power band higher... to rpm ranges where we won't be!

Xfi- how's the car coming?
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 05-03-2008 at 03:44 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2008, 04:15 PM   #110 (permalink)
Liberti
 
LostCause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 504

Thunderbird - '96 Ford Thunderbird
90 day: 27.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Re: supercapacitors

Has this ever been done?
On electric cars, yes. There is no reason the technology could not transfer over.

Quote:
Re: VW trans oil

How does it compare to ATF?
It's been awhile since I've researched this stuff so I've forgotten quite a bit, but I believe ATF is slightly less viscous. People have run ATF as an MTF, but I don't believe it offers the protection of an approved MTF. The VW MTF is approved for use in standard VW's and conforms to industry protection ratings.

Quote:
Re: Skirts AND belly pan

...at any rate, the lowest drag vehicles tested, such at the Probes, EV1, etc., only have pans, no skirts. Skirts basically work in conjunction with air dams. Air dams and skirts function to wall off the underside from air flow, rendering pans moot.
I am talking about skirts and a belly pan. I've only seen skirts applied to race cars for use in creating a venturi. Lowering the lift on a vehicle will decrease induced drag. The race car field refers to side skirts and belly pans as "catamarans." An air dam + side skirts + belly plan is referred to as a "vacuum cleaner." They operate on two different principles to generate downforce. An air dam + side skirt is something of its own.

Quote:
Re: HID lights

Firstly, I don't even know what the operating wattage of HID systems is, but assuming it's 45 or 55 vs. 65 for incandescent, I don't even need to work out the equations to know that that $300-$500 technology won't pay off re: fe increases in this lifetime.

And, I never said anything about 10 watt headlights.
The cost will depend on your thrift. You can probably score HID's (lights, ballast, igniter, etc.) on ebay for $150 or less. HID's pull 35W, producing more lumens at that rating then a 65W halogen. Theoretically, you could derate the HID's without losing performance. While their own energy savings make them worthless, if it allows you to run alternator-less then you can save big.

Also, I'm not sure what the original poster's motivation focused on: fuel economy or thriftness. If it is solely fuel economy, HID's are the way to go.

Quote:
Re: Double-clutching

I think most manual trannys are stout enough to last the life of most cars (I know that Metro synchros are kinda puny though). All that double-clutching might wear out clutch components earlier though! LOL

Who here has double-clutched? I have, and it's annoying to do especially if you don't HAVE to do it. If you think it's main value is on decel, the simple solution is to not use engine braking- for most of us engine braking is not in the hypermiling repertoire anyway.

I know you didn't hold out the "T" as THE example, but they have planetary transmissions- no clutching or hand shifting.
It's your choice how involved you want to get into the sport. If double-clutching is a PIA, don't do it.

While down-shifting is looked poorly upon, on the blue moon that it is done, double-clutching can lower clutch wear. Double-clutching shouldn't wear out the transmission. If your worried about linkages wearing out, apply some grease. By matching input and output speeds, clutch and synchro wear will be reduced: less slippage = less wear.

The lifetime of the transmission is completely arbitrary. If you baby it constantly, you could probably see 1,000,000 miles. It's your choice as to the "lifetime" of your transmission, but realize it isn't capped at 150,000 miles.

Quote:
I'm trying to imagine the situation where using the starter to turn over an engine that isn't intended to run AND propel the car at the same time 1: saves energy; 2: makes sense. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to crank engines. Also starter gears and drives are not made for that kind of loading.
Lets say you have to move 30 feet, as I see it you have three options: start the engine for a 3 second use, blip the starter, or get out and push.

I can't imagine turning on the engine for three seconds will save you any gas over the idle times you are likely to see in the real world. This will also require the tremendous amounts of energy of using the starter anyways.

You can get out and push...

You can blip the starter momentarily to give the car enough momentum to roll 30 feet. I can't imagine this putting much more load on the starter, especially if the car is already modified to heavily reduce its RR. In any case, starters can be rebuilt or had cheap by going to the junkyard. You're screwed about the energy loss anyways, so that isn't an issue.

This may not be the best option for thriftness, but it would help ultimate fuel economy. Suit the methods to your application.

In any case, my goal was to think outside of the box. If anyone really wants to save money, buy an econobox, change your driving habits, and use your car as little as possible. As far as a mental design exercise goes, I don't think contemplating the extreme is pointless...

- LostCause


Last edited by LostCause; 05-03-2008 at 04:26 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com