Fuel Efficient Engine Builders?

[cfg83]

bzipitidoo -

Originally Posted by bzipitidoo

The problem with an FE aftermarket is even if it were popularized with races, FE is still fundamentally about saving money. The cold reality is that it doesn't make economic sense to blow hundreds of dollars to save a few pounds (like by upgrading from steel to aluminum rims), or on an engine mod that increases efficiency by such a small amount it will be very hard to measure the improvement in FE,

$500 to have your engine cryo treated? Another $500 for ceramic coatings? And then another $500 for teflon impregnation? $500 more for budget mag wheels, another $500 for a lightweight composite hood, and so on. Probably the payback on all that is well over 100,000 miles, and that's the relatively cheap stuff. And there's always the question of whether you're really doing the environment a favor. For instance, the reason aluminum is so expensive is not that it's rare-- quite the opposite. It's that producing aluminum is extremely energy intensive. Factor in the energy difference in making aluminum vs steel, and that 100,000 mile payback might shoot up to 150,000. The costs of manufacturing and disposing of batteries is a huge problem with all electric cars. Nonetheless, I do think about doing such things.

Good prize money for FE competitions might change the economics. Also, I've noticed often the prices are out of line. I mean, $10K for a thermoelectric generator? Granted, it's a prototype, but what are they smoking??

I thought I was pretty tight, but among this company, I'm average or even spendthrift. I really wish I'd learned of coroplast back in Nov when there were still signs around for the taking. Since I've been unable to find coroplast at what I consider good prices, I'm thinking maybe I can do aero mods with plastic shingles made from milk jugs. For anyone thinking of offering custom aero mods, that kind of economy is tough competition.

I think that CO ZX2 got his 0.06 plastic sheet, 4'x8', for $20 at Home Depot in the wall department. That would be the one for me because all of the signs around here are too small to be practical for even a one piece air-dam under the front of my car.

...

You and I live in a culture where 0-60 in X seconds is the height of achievement. How much $$$ is spent in the aftermarket performance business trying to bring that magic number down?

I do think that the problem is more of an aesthetic one. FE races don't sound "sexy" to me when I try to put myself in Average Joe's shoes. Where's the danger in driving at 20 MPH? I think the only audience that will respond to these races are the environmentists. But who cares? If enough people can *sustain* the races, then there would be an avenue for innovation.

I don't think increasing FE is fundamentally about saving money. It is the practical side of the argument that will convince Average Joe, but it is not the whole argument. For me it's about saving the planet (which, from one POV, is more important than saving money).

This, again, gets to the question of what your goal is in terms of FE. Right now, anyone can bump up their FE by just changing the way they drive. And that's great! In direct terms that costs no $ at all, but it can cost time (I know, time is $, but it is also question of how you choose to spend it, yada yada yada).

Here's a silly analogy. In Slot Car racing, there can be all sorts of classes of racing. For example, there can be stock, where the car is straight out of the box, or no magnets, which is slower but requires more skill to drive, or "modded to the max" where you can do whatever you want to make the car go faster.

I think that for you, in terms of FE, you would prefer the "stock" FE race, where it is mostly the skill of the driver that determines the FE. A race like that would imply the same car (aka all Toyota Yaris' cars) to make everything the same, along with extra weight in the car to make up for the differences in driver weights (maybe races would start at Truck weighing stations).

Hmmmmm, I wonder if this is an avenue for soliciting the car companies? They could provide the cars, let us race them for a few hundred miles, and then maybe sell them to the rent-a-car companies when we're done.

I think I'll go have a slice of pie-in-the-sky-ala-mode right now,

CarloSW2

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by bzipitidoo

The costs of manufacturing and disposing of batteries is a huge problem with all electric cars. Nonetheless, I do think about doing such things.

Battery disposal is a problem. But battery recycling isn't. So much so that recyclers will gladly pay you for your dead lead acid batteries.

I don't know about the other "advanced" battery chemistries, but I have read that lead acid (ie starting & golf cart type) batteries are the single most recycled consumer product.

[Silveredwings]

Originally Posted by bzipitidoo

The problem with an FE aftermarket is even if it were popularized with races, FE is still fundamentally about saving money.

I think you hit the nail right on the thumb

On the subjective side of rallying the masses, the problem is that thus far, it is only about money. There isn't any sex or coolness in FE right now. That's what keeps the gazelle from stampeding the marauding lions. So many of us feel alone and believe that our efforts are lost in our collective stupor. But if FE was done enmasse, we could save $billions. It may be heressy to suggest in our culture, but what if we didn't give $billions in subsidies to the oil industry? What if we didn't spend hundreds of $billions maintaining the security of their worldwide infrastructure? We might even create a whole huge export industry of alternate energy technology (before all the less repressed countries do). Maybe we could reverse course and move towards sanity.

... Nahhhhhhhh!!!!! What was I thinking?!?

[northboundtrain]

The thing about FE mods on existing cars is that it is nothing new -- we're not breaking new ground. You think Detroit doesn't know a thing or two about aerodynamics or camshafts? Volkswagen recently made a "one liter" car that gets over 260 mpg. Then VW shelved the entire project when the company determined that the car would have to sell for $26,000 to be profitable and their market researchers came back with a report stating that the target market wouldn't be willing to pay that much. You can check out the car here if you don't already know about it: http://greatchange.org/footnotes-1-liter-car.html

If you want to know why there aren't more fuel efficient or alternative fuel vehicles on the road right now just rent the film "who killed the electric car?"

Detroit will start offering better fuel efficient cars when their SUVs are rusting away on the dealer lots and there are long waiting lists for hybrids and small diesels -- in other words, when the population votes en masse with it's collective pocket book.

I can't help but see a bit of irony when I think of people spending their free time needlessly burning up fossil fuels in their little FE grand prix events in order to make some sort of statement about how we all should be consuming less fossil fuel.

[cfg83]

theclencher -

Originally Posted by theclencher

Actually the more efficient the vehicle starts out as, the worse the expense/benefit equation becomes!

50 mpg / 15,000 m/year = 300 gallons;
@ $2/gallon = $600
@ $3/gallon = $900
@ $4/gallon = $1200.

60 mpg / 15,000 m/year = 250 gallons;
@ $2/gallon = $500, or $100 savings/year, over let's say 5 years, = $500 total savings, meaning you have to get the +10 mpg mods done for less than $500 just to achieve parity or break even, not to mention coming out ahead!
@ $3/gallon = $750, or $150 savings/year, over 5 years = $750... and so on.

So the applications where expensive FE mods really pay for themselves are those in which the original vehicle FE was really bad, it gets driven a lot of miles, and when gasoline costs more. An example of this would be a pickup truck used for lots of hauling- when the numbers are crunched it might actually be worthwhile to install that $2,500 overdrive unit- but most of the time it isn't.

Which reminds me of ...... the trucking industry!!!!!!

We need a trucker to join GasSavers.

CarloSW2

[northboundtrain]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Actually the more efficient the vehicle starts out as, the worse the expense/benefit equation becomes!

Exactly. The law of diminishing returns. Going from 50 mpg to 60 mpg -- a 20 percent improvement -- yields a savings of 50 gallons over 15,000 miles. Now take a vehicle getting only 20 mpg. It only has to improve to 21.4 mpg to save the same 50 gallons -- only a 7 percent improvement. If that 20 mpg vehicle improves 20 percent to 24 mpg, then it saves 125 gallons.

The market, if there is one, is at the bottom end, not the top.

[cfg83]

theclencher -

Originally Posted by theclencher

At this point in time, once you achieve a certain mpg, getting above it is largely academic. NOT WITHOUT MERIT, mind you; I'm just saying that above a certain mpg the dollar and gallon amounts saved become inconsequential.

For example if I was getting 60 mpg and I put on 10,000 miles/year I'd burn 167 gallons/year; 70 mpg = 143 gallons/year. So while 70 mpg is nice and something fun to shoot for and I'd achieve some sort of status if I did, the reality is 24 gallons difference over a year's time is basically nothing. 70 vs 80, or 80 vs 90 and it gets even worse.

Again I think the question is what is your goal? If you are only interested in increasing MPG for saving $$, then the "cold economic" numbers are definitely your litmus test.

Increasing MPG can also be a hobby, just like anything else (trainspotting in the UK?!?!?!?!?!?). How much money have you saved over the years in practicing one of your hobbies? Probably none, unless your hobby dovetailed into something that turned into a career where you derived the majority of your income from it.

Saving gas also has that political thang attached to it.

CarloSW2

[northboundtrain]

Originally Posted by theclencher

I'd bet it was always intended to be just a technical excercise and never a serious production proposal.

Well perhaps you are right about the one liter car. I just re-read this article, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...ndons_its.html It says that the one liter was a testbed for an ultra fuel efficient concept car which it would not have been able to sell for less than 26k. I guess the concept car wouldn't have quite gotten 260 mpg, but presumably it would have been considerably more efficient than the lupo (78 mpg), which VW did sell in Europe. I guess that says it all though. People will pay for speed (26k is nothing for a sports car), but not fuel economy -- not yet at least. . .

[Silveredwings]

Originally Posted by northboundtrain

People will pay for speed (26k is nothing for a sports car), but not fuel economy -- not yet at least. . . [emphasis added]

Exactamundo.