backtop

Print 105 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Nov 3 at 2:06 PM

Honda reduced friction in the Odyssey' V6 engine to help improve fuel efficiency.
Friction reduction brings tiny mpg improvements

The more stringent CAFE standards that are looming have automakers running to find ways to improve fuel economy. The easy/cheap to implement strategies for better fuel economy have already been implemented in the past, so what’s left for automakers to try now are things that require lots of work for minimal gains.
 
One area where the automakers are looking to get tiny bits of economy is by reducing the friction inside an engine. Friction reduces the power of an engine and creates heat. If the friction can be reduced, the engines can produce more power allowing the automaker to downsize the engine for better economy without sacrificing performance.
 
Considerable effort is being put into small gains such as the 3 mpg Honda achieved in the V6 used in its Odyssey minivan. One of the things that helped get that extra fuel economy was reducing friction in the engine by 4%.
 
That 4% reduction in friction was good for a tiny 0.15 mpg increase in fuel economy according to The Detroit News. The increase seems hardly worth the effort, but automotive engineers say that it is a worthwhile gain. Every little bit will be needed to reach the CAFE goals in the future.
 
One of the places that the most friction occurs and can be reduced is in the piston assembly. Automakers are using specialized coatings they can apply to the cylinder bores to help the engine operate with less friction.
 
Mercedes-Benz is one company that has been using friction-reducing coatings in the cylinder bores as far back as 2006. The Mercedes-Benz process is called Nanoslide and according to MB, it reduced fuel consumption in the firm’s diesel V6 used in the ML350 BlueTec model by 3%. Honing the cylinders for a smoother finish is another technique. The key is making a smooth finish yet leaving grooves that can hold oil for lubrication. 
 
Changes to the engine design are also being made by some to improve efficiently and reduce friction. Ford offsets the crank from under the cylinders in the new 1L 3-cylinder engine to reduce friction. Some automakers are also moving to thinner oils and allowing engines to run hotter to keep the oil thin and easier to move in the engine. Other tech that will be needed to meet fuel economy standards will include direct injection, cylinder deactivation, and hybrid technology.
 
Chrysler's CEO has already stated the company will be forced to go hybrid to meet upcoming CAFÉ standards.

Source: Detroit News


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
You know what else helps in mpg?
By quiksilvr on 10/31/2011 12:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon fiber. It's now less than three times the cost of steel. Car manufacturers should start small and make it standard for their hoods, then as productions increases and costs decrease, use it for more parts until carbon fiber becomes a financially viable alternative to steel.




RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/31/2011 12:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think that was Toyota's plan with the Lexus LFA. They developed their own in-house carbon fiber loom which I'm assuming they'll be using for future applications.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Shig on 10/31/2011 12:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
@quiksilvr - BMW is doing it.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20078454-48/b...

Germany also has the largest carbon nanotube factory in the world @ 200 tonnes / year.

http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles/carbon-nanot...


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 1:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
Color me in line for the first price accessible sports car in CF.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Samus on 10/31/2011 7:01:16 PM , Rating: 1
Carbon hoods alone can save over 50lbs, and possibly improve safety. Adding carbon to other heavy areas can reduce weight too. Trunks and fenders are usually already tin-thin, but doors can be quite heavy on some cars, as can be subframes, crossmembers, etc.

The other thing nobody seems to pay weight-saving attention too is the battery. A lead acid battery weighs 40-70lbs depending on size. AGM/Gel batteries cost little more and weight half as much. That should at the very LEAST break even over the life of the battery, while also improving safety: AGM batteries can't spill, short circuit, or explode. Some don't even emit gas negating a ventilated area, a common problem with placing batteries in the cabin or trunk.

Lots of simple things can be done to improve MPG. Ford is going to have 95% of its vehicles on hydroelectric steering in 2012, increasing fuel economy over 1MPG and greatly simplifying the traditional power steering system. Reducing friction should be a benifit of longterm reliability more than anything.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Zoomer on 11/1/2011 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Mercedes already uses SLAs.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By animekenji on 11/2/2011 8:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
A car hood doesn't weigh 50 lbs. so how can you save that much going to carbon fiber? The hood on my 1973 Road Runner doesn't even weigh that much. Stop pulling numbers out of your butt to make yourself look like you know something when you don't.


By tastyratz on 11/2/2011 10:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Before pointing fingers, realize he is telling the truth.

A car hood can and often was 50lbs in the 90s, but is commonly far less now. I recently shipped a r32 skyline gts hood and it was 43lbs. I would say my 95 240sx hood was even more off the top of my head. A steel hood has quite a bit of weight.

Carbon fiber is easy to go to on a structural part, but the reality is we have had low cost alternatives for quite some time. Fiberglass and now more commonly aluminum hoods reduce weight quite a bit while not having that much more weight compared to the still expensive carbon fiber.

For example my r32 skyline gts steel hood was 43lbs, my aluminum gtr hood is 11lbs. I looked at CF but it was almost the same weight and netted no gain even though it looks nice.

Carbon fiber also leads to some very interesting structural concerns in regards to crash testing new vehicles. Not much energy can be absorbed in something that does not crumple... That crash energy needs to be absorbed somewhere.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Jeffk464 on 10/31/2011 7:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
Its amazing what the auto companies can do once they decided to stop fighting mileage standards and start engineering.


By YashBudini on 10/31/2011 11:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
If you watched what happened from 1970 to 1975 you'd swear Detroit spent more time and effort on fighting upcoming emission standards than on working on a solution. They tried to convince Congress it was not possible. Honda came along and disproved that delusion.

If competition with each other where redirected to be competition against a common enemy (emissions) we'd probably would have a clean engine by now.

As Mercedes routinely used to point out their safety patents are free to copy, for the greater good. (Socialist bastards [/sarcasm]).


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By CZroe on 11/1/2011 12:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yo do realize that we are paying for it regardless, right?


By toyotabedzrock on 11/1/2011 10:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Honda and other dirt bike manufacturers have used these exact technologies, cylinder bore coatings and honing of cylinder bores, since the early 90s.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 1:31:55 PM , Rating: 3
Wow less than three times the cost of steel!?!? Talk about cheap!

Seriously. Something costing three times as much as another thing pretty much rules it out on a mass market car.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By seamonkey79 on 10/31/2011 1:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree with you, but if they did use it for some of the larger and easier to manufacture pieces, the total cost to manufacture shouldn't go up too much. Make the hood or the roof of the car CF and you might add a couple of hundred dollars to the cost, but save a hundred pounds of curb weight. They simply should be looking at any and all options that aren't stupid expensive, and pick out what works the best.

CF is a reasonable alternative to steel, as opposed to a few years ago where it was 5x and more than steel.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 1:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I tend to agree with you, but if they did use it for some of the larger and easier to manufacture pieces, the total cost to manufacture shouldn't go up too much.
If it's three times the cost of steel then that's how much it costs. BMW can get away with it because their customers will pay for the extra expense. Toyota and Ford cannot. But I'm betting we'll see it anyways with the requisite price increase.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By cjohnson2136 on 10/31/2011 2:05:45 PM , Rating: 3
If they do the entire car of CF then Ford or Toyota customers can't afford it. But if you start small and demand a little of CF at a time the price will increase a little and when demand starts growing the price of CF will start decreasing which will then allow the price of the car to balance out until they start making them completely out of CF. It's a slow process but has to start somewhere


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 6:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't make sense to use CF in small amounts where it does nearly nothing. The point in using CF is weight reduction while maintaining strength (improving in this case). This won't be used in mirrors, it would be used in the chassis or body panels. Parts that WILL be expensive. Regardless, 3 times the cost is 3 times the cost.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Sea Shadow on 11/1/2011 3:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
That sounds good on paper, but one thing worth mentioning is the process for making carbon fiber. It requires TONS of energy. The base materials of manufacturing are plentiful and cheap, it is the process of turning that into carbon fiber that is expensive. It takes enormous ammounts of energy to create the stuff. So unless you can find new ways to generate tons of cheap power (wind farms and solar panels won't cut it), then I do not forsee the price of carbon fiber declining in an appreciable manner. If anything I would see the prices go up as demand outstrips supply.


By Sea Shadow on 11/1/2011 3:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I'm not talking about laying up the fiber and making parts in the sense of hoods and body panels. I am talking about the physical process of making carbon fiber itself. It's suprisingly easy and cheap to lay it up (make parts using woven CF) once you know what you are doing. It's the raw material that will get you.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By YashBudini on 10/31/2011 10:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BMW can get away with it because their customers will pay for the extra expense.

It always works this way. For it to be commercially viable it must reach the point where economies of scale play a major factor. The reverse is also true, you can't get cheap parts for a niche market/in small volumes.

LED light bulb prices keep dropping, and someday they'll be pretty damn cheap, we just aren't there yet.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 11:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LED light bulb prices keep dropping, and someday they'll be pretty damn cheap, we just aren't there yet.
I agree. I have an RV with all LED's, BTW and some in my house as well.


By YashBudini on 11/1/2011 3:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
There are some $10 LED bulbs on Amamzon, but they're 25 watt equivalents.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 2:13:16 PM , Rating: 3
How much do you think a hood weighs? You're talking maybe 30 pounds in savings. And the roof of a car is about the same.

Painting carbon fiber is also more complicated and expensive. Most people don't want raw carbon fiber body parts.

To save a few hundred pounds you're talking about replacing all the exterior body panels. You also have to think about what this does to insurance costs as now it costs more to repair the car.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By JediJeb on 10/31/2011 5:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
I know the 99 Trans Am I had used ABS Plastic for the front fenders and nose to save weight. That is more common and would probably not weigh any more than CF would. Plus it is cheaper and more impact friendly as it bends where CF would probably shatter.


By titanmiller on 10/31/2011 8:54:16 PM , Rating: 1
Painting isn't a real issue. Look at airplanes such as the 787. They can be painted just fine.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Jeffk464 on 10/31/2011 7:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to aluminum? You get a pretty significant weight reduction, it manufactures about the same as steel, and is easy to recycle. The few cars where aluminum was used to construct the chasis had a pretty big edge over standard chasis, the two that come to mind were the jag and rx7. Did I mention that most aluminum alloys, like used in aerospace, don't tend to corrode as easy as the steel used in cars.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 11:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
They're already using aluminum but you get more strength from CF (still gotta meet the 2025 safety standards too).


By FITCamaro on 11/1/2011 7:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well this originally started with replacing steel. The only steel left in most cars these days is the frame. Everything else is aluminum, plastic, or fiberglass.

The cost differences between steel and carbon fiber there would be thousands of dollars. Replacing an aluminum hood with a carbon fiber would be added cost at very little weight savings. Besides you don't need strength in a hood. Or even a bumper.


By YashBudini on 11/1/2011 5:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
By titanmiller on 10/31/2011 8:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
CF is probably better for hail damage too.


By animekenji on 11/2/2011 8:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
Three times the cost is still three times the cost. Even if they only replaced the hood, for instance, if it costs them $200 to manufacture a steel hood then it costs them $600 to make a carbon fiber one so that's another $400 tacked on to the sale price of the car. If the weight difference isn't enough to save you $400 in fuel costs over the time that you will be owning it, then it is not worth it. $400 doesn't sound like a lot of fuel but the weight difference isn't going to be extreme from the replacing of that one part and neither are the fuel savings so it's going to take a lot of driving to make up the difference in the purchase price.

Don't forget that going to carbon fiber body parts also drives up the cost of repairing a car after an accident so the insurance companies are going to be weighing in on this, too, and may charge you more if your car makes use of carbon fiber components that are frequently damaged in accidents because it costs them more to repair when you make a claim and they will be totaling out more cars as they get to be a few years old and the cost of repair exceeds the book value because of the use of more expensive materials in the bodies.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By YashBudini on 10/31/2011 10:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow less than three times the cost of steel!?!? Talk about cheap!

How does it compare to the cost of an aluminum hood? Roof? Materials in use today?

quote:
Something costing three times as much as another thing pretty much rules it out on a mass market car.

30 years ago the thought of a Vette getting 30 mpg on the highway was deemed absurd as well.

As for paint why not delivery a low end car with no paint? There's tons of crappy looking plastic out there today, and lower replacement costs equate to lower insurance costs. And no I wouldn't want it, but cheap works for some people.

A question not addressed is would retooling the body be cheaper with CF over steel? Sheet metal changes are substantial costs per unit.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 11/1/2011 12:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A question not addressed is would retooling the body be cheaper with CF over steel?
Most of the expensive of CF is in the manufacturing. But that looks to change. Here's some interesting info.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110711/CARNEWS/1...


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Smilin on 10/31/2011 3:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
More use = more mass production = lower cost.
More use = more R&D = lower cost.

Carbon Fiber is overkill in many applications. Lamborghini has begun using Carbon Fiber for structural components while using newly developed Carbon Composites for skin...

http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/3924/lambor...

The stuff is basically short carbon fibers injected into a mold in such a way that most fibers align.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Chadder007 on 10/31/2011 3:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Also, no Ethanol
I average 2 mpg more without that crap in my tank.


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Jeffk464 on 10/31/2011 7:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't ethanol give you higher octane, so you should be able to run higher compression ratios right?


RE: You know what else helps in mpg?
By Spuke on 11/1/2011 12:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesn't ethanol give you higher octane, so you should be able to run higher compression ratios right?
Yes, but ECU's need to be tuned to take advantage of it. Currently, it can't be done because of compromises with regular fuel.


By iamezza on 11/1/2011 2:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
Also, unfortunately, the higher you raise the compression ratio the more nasty pollutants are created like NOx


By YashBudini on 11/1/2011 6:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
They should just make ICEs that burn pure methanol to recharge hybrids, and leave regular cars alone.


By FormulaRedline on 10/31/2011 5:07:34 PM , Rating: 3
...not that much. Thanks to Newton's Second Law, Highway fuel economy (what CAFE is based on) is largely unaffected by mass and is instead based on the effeciency of the engine in converting chemical energy to mechanical work combined with aerodynamic effeciency.

In practical terms, work is required to move the vehicle up any elevation changes and so will be affected by vehicle mass. But to see reasonable changes in highway fuel economy you'd have to drop a lot of mass (like SUV to Miata), not just a few pounds from some body panels.

On City MPG, weight is certainly a factor, but for the big highway numbers everyone is freaking out about for the CAFE standards, I think the types of technology mentioned in the article will be more relevant.


No Excuse
By DrApop on 10/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: No Excuse
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 1:41:46 PM , Rating: 4
Yes and also in that time the weight of vehicles has risen 30-40% due to other government mandates and emissions requirements have also harmed fuel mileage. Engines also produce far more power than they did 30 years ago.

It's harder now than it was 10 years ago to get 40 mpg cars because of the extra weight and emissions restrictions.

So I'm tired of hearing you say "they shouldn't complain". They have every right to. They have been and continue to be ass raped from every orifice for ever more stringent standards in every department in the US. And any time they invent a new feature that they can maybe make some money off of that makes car owners lives easier, the government goes and makes it a required feature a few years later. See tire pressure sensors as an example. Soon to be back up cameras and sensors. Some of us don't want this shit because when it breaks, it costs an assload to repair. And we're not lazy enough to need a computer to tell us our tire pressure is low. We can check it ourselves.


RE: No Excuse
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 1:55:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
See tire pressure sensors as an example. Soon to be back up cameras and sensors. Some of us don't want this shit
Agreed. The Feds need to quit making this stuff mandatory. I don't want it!!! If I wanted it, I'd buy it. What cracks me up is out of the the same mouth ,the Feds want the automakers to have every car get 100 mpg regardless of shape or weight. If the Camry didn't weigh 3700 lbs because of all this mandated, useless crap, it would be MUCH easier to hit these goals. Cars are getting so expensive that NOW carbon fiber is becoming viable! LOL!

Mark my words, in 2025 the Toyota Camry WILL be $45,000 in the US. Add $15,000 for Europe.


RE: No Excuse
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 2:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well that will be because of inflation from all the debt we're taking on.

Part of why this "$100,000 is rich" talk and trying to form tax policy around it is asinine.


RE: No Excuse
By Jeffk464 on 10/31/2011 8:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
Useless crap

Improved crush zones
Improved safety cage
ABS
Air bags
stability control

all equal the very low highway death rate we have now. I guess its useless if it doesn't happen to save your life. Stability control in SUV's supposedly almost halved the death rate.


RE: No Excuse
By YashBudini on 10/31/2011 11:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
The 2012 Camry weighs in at 3245. The 2011 weighed in at 3263. Source: Edmunds.

Ford and Chrysler are using plastic intake manifolds. Weight savings? If you load down the V6 Mustang (EPA 31 highway) with power options (not government mandated) you can end up with a car that's EPA 28MPG highway. And people will buy that stuff because frankly it makes no difference to many buyers. (If they weren't marketable they would not get offered, but they are.)

All the things you claim will happen with the 2025 Camry were all claimed 30 years about today. If anyone in 1980 said that 3 ton Hummers would be found on US roads with gas at $3.50+ a gallon you would have been called nuts, and yet it happened.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But what you do know for sure is if there's no pressing need one way or the other then things won't evolve. That's why war and space travel spur developments, a great need in a short period of time.

Funny how there's never any mention how sound insulating materials add substantial weight without government mandating. Does that make them OK in your POV? Just a question, and not that you get to choose there either.


RE: No Excuse
By Spuke on 11/1/2011 12:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
Options don't bother me. And cars are MUCH more expensive than 30 years ago. People are still buying cars and will continue to do so. Not my point. How many people were eliminated from buying new because of these "improvements"? Anecdote: my mother has never owned a new car and will never be able to. That's my point. Between you and I, car prices can go wherever they go. Doesn't matter to me. My wife and I are in the percentage of Americans whose income keeps increasing. But like the "Europeans" here like to reminds us stupid Americans every so often, there's more than just me in this world. I'd like to see new cars remain affordable. So I will be against "unnatural" increases in car prices.


RE: No Excuse
By Ryrod on 10/31/2011 2:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of the weight has also come from valuable safety technologies that has helped save lives. Think of ABS and airbags. I know I don't want my wheels locking up on snow and I want something, other than metal, to cushion my head when I get hit by someone else. So I think some of the weight is more than worth it.

However, a lot of the weight has come from the added materials due to making the vehicles larger than they were in the 70s. Some of the weight has also come from optional equipment that is really unnecessary, but acts as a convenience to people. Think of heated seats, bluetooth, and navigation systems. These also add weight to the vehicle and are not mandated by the government.

So it is not entirely the fault of the government that cars have put on some pounds. The car manufacturers, and the population in general, is also to blame for the added weight.


RE: No Excuse
By Keeir on 10/31/2011 2:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
No offense, but the Primary Culprits listed in order

1. Consumers
2. Government
3. Manufacturer

CAFE is nothing more than an attempt to get Manufacturers to enforce unpopular choices on Consumers.

Consumers are the ones requesting Leather Seats, Heated Seats, Ability to use Bluetooth, Navigation, etc. Consumers are the ones unwilling to SPEND MONEY upfront on fuel saving technology.

Even as recently as 2008/2009, people were unwilling to put more upfront in cost then they could save over 30,000 miles... and then only if the automobile didn't lose any features. This means there are very few technologies the average consumer is actually willing to pay for... they want the extra efficieny for free!

Having spent years analyzing car data, the average interior volume of cars in the United States have not risen in 25 years! The exterior size has increased due to crumple zone safety technology sure, and the Camry/Accords of the world have been Americanized, but the interior volume has not changed.

What has changed is the mass, and exterior size of cars. Manufacturers are making drivetrains that are 20-30% more efficient and still the cars return less Miles per gallon. At some point in time there has to be some relief. Manufacturers ought to be able to make whatever car they feel will sell. If we need to control consumer choices, lets politically control consumer choices. Not foist the task off on Manufacturers who really can only use price


RE: No Excuse
By Ryrod on 10/31/2011 9:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No offense, but the Primary Culprits listed in order

1. Consumers
2. Government
3. Manufacturer

CAFE is nothing more than an attempt to get Manufacturers to enforce unpopular choices on Consumers.


I don't disagree with that. I can understand why car companies complain about the CAFE standards. People want bigger cars with more crap in them, while the government wants fuel efficient cars. This leaves car manufacturers in the middle trying to balance the desires of the consumer with the goals of the government.

However, I think the car manufacturers definitely played a part in where we are right now. Number two and three on your list are almost interchangeable due to the past marketing campaigns of the major manufacturers. They have long been pushing the trend toward trucks, SUVs and large cars because those make the most profit.

quote:
Even as recently as 2008/2009, people were unwilling to put more upfront in cost then they could save over 30,000 miles... and then only if the automobile didn't lose any features. This means there are very few technologies the average consumer is actually willing to pay for... they want the extra efficieny for free!


I agree that most consumers think this way. That's why F-150s are still one of the highest selling vehicles even today. I don't think the F-150 even dropped from the top spot during the $4+ oil spike we had a couple years ago. The first thought is always going to be style with practicality taking a distant second.

quote:
What has changed is the mass, and exterior size of cars. Manufacturers are making drivetrains that are 20-30% more efficient and still the cars return less Miles per gallon. At some point in time there has to be some relief. Manufacturers ought to be able to make whatever car they feel will sell. If we need to control consumer choices, lets politically control consumer choices. Not foist the task off on Manufacturers who really can only use price


The problem is that mass should not have to drastically change in these cars. We are seeing larger engines with more horsepower which add to the weight of the car. This is largely due to the consumer view that vehicles should race ahead when you hit the gas, like the stock cars in NASCAR. I always love when I see a BMW 5 series gun it off the line to get up to 55mph and it amazes me that someone would want to waste all that gasoline just to get up to speed 15 seconds faster than everyone else.

Now I understand growing larger to accommodate crumple zones, but we should not be adding substantially more weight (to the tune of 400-500lbs) because of that. The problem is that we are adding more useless weight to cars from optional convenience equipment and larger engines, which ultimately hurts the fuel economy.


RE: No Excuse
By FITCamaro on 11/1/2011 5:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
during the $4+ oil spike we had a couple years ago.


What are you talking about a few years ago? Gas hit over $4/gallon earlier this year. Just George Bush wasn't president so the media ignored it.


RE: No Excuse
By sorry dog on 11/3/2011 2:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that mass should not have to drastically change in these cars. We are seeing larger engines with more horsepower which add to the weight of the car. This is largely due to the consumer view that vehicles should race ahead when you hit the gas, like the stock cars in NASCAR. I always love when I see a BMW 5 series gun it off the line to get up to 55mph and it amazes me that someone would want to waste all that gasoline just to get up to speed 15 seconds faster than everyone else.


You saying more horsepower is adding weight to the car is false for most car models. The oft mentioned Camry V6 is a 3.5L making around 270hp. An early 90's Camry had a 3.0L V6 making around 185hp, but it weighs around 100lbs more than the current engine. In fact the current V6 weighs in less than many four cylinders.

...and yes, I feel that when I hit the gas, the car should accelerate. Not sure what this has to do with NASCAR, but if you want a slower car that's great...but once you think your opinion of acceptable car performance is better than my opinion...well, you know what they say about opinions...everybody has one and most of them stink...


RE: No Excuse
By JediJeb on 10/31/2011 5:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, a lot of the weight has come from the added materials due to making the vehicles larger than they were in the 70s.


Maybe a Honda Civic of today is larger than a '76 Civic was but how many cars today even approach the size of a '73 Chevy Impala, or Plymouth Fury III, or Buick Electra 225, or even a '72 Ford Mustang? Cars from the early '70s were the size of aircraft carriers compared to most cars today. Me and my sister could sleep in the back window area of my parent's Fury III while going down the interstate, you can't fit a Chihuahua in the back window of most cars made today.

I even remember my college roommate riding home in the trunk of his brother's Ford Maverick because they were mad at each other. He hopped in the trunk because his brother locked him out as he was leaving lol. He said he had a 20oz drink and a bag of chips and had plenty of room to ride comfortably. How many cars that are considered midsized today have that kind of room :)


RE: No Excuse
By Ryrod on 10/31/2011 7:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe a Honda Civic of today is larger than a '76 Civic was but how many cars today even approach the size of a '73 Chevy Impala, or Plymouth Fury III, or Buick Electra 225, or even a '72 Ford Mustang?


The cars that you named are performance or full-size premium vehicles. It's not really fair to make a comparison between a compact car and a full-size or performance vehicle. If you compare 70s models with cars of the same class, almost all vehicles have increased in size. Full-size vehicles have not increased very much, maybe a few inches in length or width, but compare a 70s Civic to a '12 Civic and you'll see that it has increased 30+ inches in length and 10+ inches in width. Or you can compare the Ford Escort to the Focus. The Focus has added 10 inches in width and 10+ inches in length.

quote:
How many cars that are considered midsized today have that kind of room :)


I understand what you are saying because I remember sleeping in the back of an older style '83 Buick Century and it was spacious. However, a lot of the space came from a smaller trunk area and thinner/straighter doors. The trunk was deeper than current cars which allowed you to carry more, but the car also did not have a spare tire like many cars do now.


RE: No Excuse
By JediJeb on 10/31/2011 5:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know I don't want my wheels locking up on snow and I want something, other than metal, to cushion my head when I get hit by someone else. So I think some of the weight is more than worth it.


I have driven for years on snow and ice without anti-lock brakes and even my current truck only has them on the rear and I have never had any problems with wheel locking up on snow. Just have to be careful in how you use the brakes and spend time learning how your vehicle responds to your actions. Too many drivers today have become complacent or even down right careless as they rely more and more on the safety systems to keep them safe instead of good driving habits.


RE: No Excuse
By millerm277 on 11/1/2011 12:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's because ABS doesn't really actually help in significant amounts of snow, seeing as the fastest way to stop in those conditions is by allowing the wheels to lock up more than ABS will let them. When none of the road has any grip (such as in deep snow/a sheet of ice), ABS will make it take longer to stop.

ABS's primary benefit is in small amounts of snow/ice and wet conditions.


RE: No Excuse
By DFranch on 10/31/2011 2:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
Damn Government ... They can stick their seat belts, Air bags and Anti-lock brakes ... Oh, What these things save lives, and without the government forcing the issue we wouldn't have them. Nevermind!


RE: No Excuse
By Keeir on 10/31/2011 2:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Really? How many Airbags does the Nissan Versa, the -cheapest- new car in the US have standard again? Far above the regulations.... you don't say!

If an item is valuable for safety, people will want to purchase it. The government did not invent nor direct invention of any of your examples. And often took more than a decade after thier introduction in for sale models to pass any regulation on them


RE: No Excuse
By cjohnson2136 on 10/31/2011 2:57:57 PM , Rating: 3
We should just not worry about safety and let people die. I think if we let more people die we would be better off. Person OD's on drugs let them die shouldn't have taken them in the first place, person is 80 years old let em die hasn't worked in such a long time that they don't have the economy anymore, stupid person runs his car into a tree because he was talking on his phone and now has a tree branch stuck in hos chest well let him die. We have about 7 billion people on this Earth just let some people die already. How about the black plague to wipe out 2 billion that will help our hunger problem


RE: No Excuse
By cjohnson2136 on 10/31/2011 4:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that they don't have the economy anymore


help not have


RE: No Excuse
By Jeffk464 on 10/31/2011 8:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
You know you pay for their accidents because of hospital bills right?


RE: No Excuse
By YashBudini on 10/31/2011 11:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how people who say this stuff want to apply to it all others, but never to themselves, their kids, their family. I wonder why that is? OK, not really I don't.

There was a leader in the 1930's who made comments like this, and he had a lot of followers, for a while. Perhaps you also want to sterilize people you deem unworthy, like he did? Because hey, someone died and made you god (capitalization not earned).


RE: No Excuse
By Jeffk464 on 11/1/2011 10:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
It is considerable more humane to try to control population through education and birth control rather than causing deaths.


RE: No Excuse
By YashBudini on 11/1/2011 3:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
And at some point you are no longer willing to shoot them because you don't want the expenditure of a single bullet.

Now we're just waiting for Johnson to hang up that historic sign "Work will set you free."


RE: No Excuse
By NellyFromMA on 10/31/2011 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is two fold as I see it.

A) Automakers have basically emphasized manufacturing innovations over engineering ones, partially because of UAW squeezing too much from them (feel free to disagree, I'm not here to debate on it) as well as your typical corporate greed. Each end up effing you and I.

B) To make up for this, the govt has decided to to force hands. What they fail to understand is now you have innovations such as 'let the engine run hotter' to earn your gains in mpg. Too bad the vehicle in turn is wearing and tearing mroe as a result. Again, you and I get effed.

So, ya ya we get it. Car companies are mean. But like most of today's problems, they are multi-faceted and a lot more sohpisticated than what 80% of the people affected by it are willing to notice.

Govt isn't making it any better. Both bank on you being too dumb/complacent to do much.

Just my two cents.


RE: No Excuse
By Solandri on 10/31/2011 3:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The CAFE standards went into effect in the mid 70's. From that time until the mid 2000's there was absolutely no change in the CAFE standard mpg levels.

Say what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fue...

There was no change in the CAFE standard for passenger cars from 1990-2010, but it was already a fairly high 27.5 mpg by then. Combined fleet (cars + trucks) standard continued to rise during that time.


Solution or Gimmick?
By lightfoot on 10/31/2011 1:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automakers are using specialized coatings they can apply to the cylinder bores to help the engine operate with less friction.

How long does this coating last? Will it need to be reapplied at various intervals? Really it just needs to last long enough for the EPA to do its testing of the vehicle...

If it is just a trick or gimmick, does that really help us in the long run?




RE: Solution or Gimmick?
By InfinityzeN on 10/31/2011 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
These types of coating are designed to last the lifetime of the engine. It is not a trick or gimmick. MB and Nissan for example are already selling vehicles with a variation of this technology.


RE: Solution or Gimmick?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 1:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
The "lifetime" of an engine is subjective. To someone who changes cars every 3-4 years because they're an idiot who leases, "lifetime" is 30-40,000 miles. For others it might be 100,000 miles. For people like me, its 300,000 miles bare minimum. My family has had two cars pass this mark.


RE: Solution or Gimmick?
By Ryrod on 10/31/2011 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think they are talking about the lifetime of the engine and not for the ownership of the car. My guess would probably be 200k+ miles, since that is what a lot of engines will average now.


RE: Solution or Gimmick?
By JediJeb on 10/31/2011 5:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm at 223K miles currently and still going. I had 175k on my little Ranger I sold last year, and about 150K on the 79 Mustang I drove in college and at least 150K on the 99 Trans Am my ex-gf wrecked. 30-40K miles is just getting broke in good for me.


RE: Solution or Gimmick?
By gixser on 10/31/2011 1:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
Cyclinder coatings to reduce friction have been around for ages. I remember buying bikes with Nikasil cyclinder coatings in the late 80's. Accortding to this Wikipedia article Nikasil has been around since 1967: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikasil

I suspect the cost of production is small but I have nothing to back that up.


Cylinder deactivation is a cruel joke
By DT_Reader on 10/31/2011 1:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Other tech that will be needed to meet fuel economy standards will include...cylinder deactivation
Run the numbers and you'll see that cylinder deactivation does not work. The parasitic friction you describe is still there for the deactivated cylinders, but now you're getting no work out of them, and you get to carry their weight plus the extra weight of the valve train deactivation mechanism. When I was at Oldsmobile we looked at and rejected this tech in the late 1970s, and we were amazed that Cadillac took the bait and produced their "V8/6/4", which got no better mileage than a regular Cadillac but which had all the performance you'd expect of a 4 cylinder engine in a 5000 pound car. As a bonus, in V6 mode it was as smooth as a V8 with two spark plugs missing, which it was. A turbocharged V6 or L4 is a much better option; more power from less weight always beats less power from more weight. A turbo diesel coupled to a hybrid regenerative drive train is clearly the optimum short-term solution, until better batteries come along.




RE: Cylinder deactivation is a cruel joke
By Spuke on 10/31/2011 1:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A turbo diesel coupled to a hybrid regenerative drive train is clearly the optimum short-term solution, until better batteries come along.
Except that no one wants to pay for that including you.


By FITCamaro on 10/31/2011 1:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'll take the diesel without the few hundred pounds required for the hybrid crap.


RE: Cylinder deactivation is a cruel joke
By Sivar on 10/31/2011 3:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to disagree with you citing better modern cylinder deactivation, but I just looked up the numbers on fueleconomy.gov.
Camry I4/V6: 28/25
Accord I4/V6: 27/24
Both a difference of 3MPG between the V6 and V8.
Of course gov't fuel standards don't represent real driving and the comparison is not perfectly apples to apples, but it does have value.

Of note is that the 2007 V6 (the last pre-TLA V6) got 21MPG, so while there are many other factors to consider, it does get better mileage by that one metric.


By danbb on 11/1/2011 8:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
if you just took 2 spark plugs out of the six cylinder, I bet it would more than eat up that 3 mpg increase that the 4 cylinder has


By YashBudini on 11/1/2011 3:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"V8/6/4"

Yeah Chrysler also tried this, got a whopping 7% mileage increase in 4 cylinder mode. Not a good example of reducing friction that's for sure.

Two separate engines would have made more sense.


Illogical
By Dorkyman on 10/31/2011 12:58:24 PM , Rating: 1
"...The increase seems hardly worth the effort, but automotive engineers say that it is a worthwhile gain. Every little bit will be needed to reach the CAFE goals in the future..."

Gee, maybe the CAFE goals are absurd?

Working like crazy to eke out an additional 0.1 mpg is wasted and misdirected effort.

I am actually optimistic on this, however. In a year there will be a new administration and they will hopefully bring common sense to the scene. Dumping CAFE would be the first step.




RE: Illogical
By gregpet on 10/31/2011 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks Spock.


RE: Illogical
By gamerk2 on 10/31/2011 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
Unless Republicans get smart and put up Romney [which I very much doubt], I see Obama cruising to a second term.

No one gets the ulterior motive here: CAFE is being used to try and force the Internal Combustion Engine into obsolecense. By making the CAFE standards SO high, the attempt is to force alternative fuels [preferably Hydro-Fuel] to take over, whether the oil companies like it or not.

Until the ICE is removed, fuel efficency will not increase. And with the worlds supply of oil in decline, its time to start forcing the issue. ...or, we could wait until $10/gallon to get started on R&D for replacments...


RE: Illogical
By Keeir on 10/31/2011 3:14:40 PM , Rating: 1
Gamerk2

Why in the world do you think Oil Companies and Car Companies are not performing R&D?

They should know better than anyone else that the world's supply of oil is running out.

They certainly want to keep making enormous profits.

The only way to assure this is to ensure that any future tech on fuels and transportation is under thier control.

We as a nation can not force a solution that is more economical than 5 dollar gas or 10 dollar gas even... it will either be created by someone wanting to make billions or it won't. Setting Regulation will not really help that much... unless you feel like paying more now so you might not need to pay more later, but you likely will have to pay even more later...


RE: Illogical
By Dorkyman on 10/31/2011 8:23:53 PM , Rating: 3
The world's oil supply is NOT running out.

Oil capable of being extracted for $2/barrel (Saudi Arabia) is very gradually running out. Not so for oil that needs $5 or $10 to extract.

"Peak Oil" is a fiction. The date keeps getting pushed back.

Another fiction: the oil companies are NOT making "enormous profits" on a percentage basis; in fact, their percentages are lower than those of many other high-capitalization industries.


RE: Illogical
By Spuke on 11/1/2011 12:32:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Another fiction: the oil companies are NOT making "enormous profits" on a percentage basis; in fact, their percentages are lower than those of many other high-capitalization industries.
Sorry but they're making tons of money.


RE: Illogical
By Jeffk464 on 10/31/2011 8:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really my 1990 ford escort was the ultimate in under engineered cheepo economy box. It got about 28mpg, the new ford focus is a quantum leap improvement in safety, handling, comfort, and it gets 40mpg.

How have these efforts been absurd?


And Honda says diesel is too expensive
By Lord 666 on 10/31/2011 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Honda missed the boat by shelving their diesel plans. These little gains are nothing compared to what a diesel CRV or minivan would have pulled off.




RE: And Honda says diesel is too expensive
By Solandri on 10/31/2011 3:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Most of diesel's gains are phantom. They're due to diesel having a higher energy density, and the fact that we measure fuel efficiency by volume rather than by mass. If you take that into account, and factor in the higher pollution generation of diesel, the Union of Concerned Scientists recommends adjusting down the mpg of a diesel car by 20% to get a gasoline mpg equivalent.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_...


By JediJeb on 10/31/2011 6:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
If only it could be dispensed by mass on a consumer level. At least then the consumers wouldn't be ripped off during the summer when fuel is less dense than in winter. I know of one truck stop not far from me that got caught using tank heaters to rip off truck drivers. They heated the diesel tanks to something like 100F, then truckers would pump 300gallons of fuel and by the time they got a few miles down the road they only had something like 290 gallons. Even if the shrinkage was no more than that, the truck stop was getting something like $40 extra for that fuel. I can't remember what the actual shrinkage numbers were but they were making quite a good extra profit from it.


By Dorkyman on 10/31/2011 8:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
...and all this time I thought those nutty Europeans were buying diesel cars because they were 30% better than gas cars for fuel economy. Must be that they instead just love the smell of diesel exhaust.


Really - 3%
By Dr of crap on 10/31/2011 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I know if you add up all the little gains it can add up to big gains.
But, it seems a waste of money - then added to the car price - to gain 3% on 30 mpg which is less than 1 mpg.
There must be other more cost effective ways to reduce mpgs.




RE: Really - 3%
By retrospooty on 10/31/2011 12:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on how much this effects the cost of the car. Is that noted anywhere? I don't see it.


RE: Really - 3%
By The Raven on 10/31/2011 1:07:35 PM , Rating: 3
Good point, but FYI it has a combined of 21 mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/29541.shtm...

I wish the gov't could grasp the same concept (e.g. NPR only costs the gov't $X and Amtrak only costs the gov't $X... )
(And no, I am not trying to specifically point those out, they are just examples.)


hmmm
By NellyFromMA on 10/31/2011 2:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious, if people are concerned with the ever-widening gap between the poor and middle class (as well as the middle class and the super-upper-mighty-mega-upper-class) then how does making vehicles less affordable for the average person help that out in any way?

Please do not cite the used car market. The reason I say this is because the poor-to-middle class aren't likely to have the money to foot the costs to fix these vehicles; not their carbon fiber bodies, not their diagnostics on their ultra sophisticated cpus.

Also, things like 'running the engine hotter' and 'port polish' in order to achieve higher mpgs at higher costs will leave cars in worse disrepair when these people finally get their hands on these used vehicles...

Any thoughts...?




RE: hmmm
By cjohnson2136 on 10/31/2011 2:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
My feelings are regardless of what the price of cars raise to the poor and lower middle class will still be buying cheaper used cars anyway. So either way by the time the brand new car gets to the middle class it will be older it will be used.

As for the repair kind of stuff I don't think fixing the carbon fiber would come out of pocket unless they didn't have car insurance. Running the engine hot does seem a bit risky and I don't know too much on this coating stuff they are talking about.


RE: hmmm
By NellyFromMA on 11/1/2011 8:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
Body repairs, regardless of the material of the panels, may come out of pocket in any number of ways regardless of insurance. Specifically regarding insurance though, if insurance keeps getting biller for more and mroe expensive parts, as they are currently, insurance premiums will continue to go higher. If shops have to have more technically trained staff for painting and finishing these new materials, that will add up to costs too. One way or the other the bill ends up on your step.

Of course they will continue to buy these cars, but if they are being run hotter under more extreme conditions to try to gain minor mpg increases, there's no way that car is going to be in 'good' condition, but you will still pay more.

It just seems silly to me... Almost as if they want certain people to be sensibly priced out so that they can rely on public transportation now. Maybe that's the directions we're all being nudged in.


Why not...?
By Qapa on 10/31/2011 3:30:32 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe what is mentioned in the article helps...

But why not also:
- 7 shifts default instead of 5 shifts
- CVT
- larger wheels
- less HP
- more cars instead of SUVs
- less heavier cars

But truthfully, if by now, EVs and HEVs, can be considered not ready for the masses (infrastructure, range, upfront cost, ..) it is unthinkable that in 5 years time, those won't be much better positioned for the masses - and no, that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to buy anything else, but it should by their own merits, make people think about buying them.

So, I personally expect that in 10 years, EVs and HEVs should be, at the very least double digit percentage-wise of sold cars (>10%). And depending on new tech getting to market and car companies adopting and researching new tech for EVs (mostly batteries), possibly climbing already to >20% to >40% of sold cars.

So, to Chrysler's CEO, either a guy who doesn't know what he's doing or a guy who is too afraid of change: Yes, EVs, HEVs, etc are here to stay, embrace them. Stop bitching about it. Actually do something for your business for a change. Do something more than try to prepare some good looking reports for shareholders.




RE: Why not...?
By JediJeb on 10/31/2011 6:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But why not also:
- 7 shifts default instead of 5 shifts
- CVT
- larger wheels
- less HP
- more cars instead of SUVs
- less heavier cars


Not sure why 7 speeds would be better than 5, currently I usually only use 3 of the 5 speeds in my truck and I get better mileage skipping into overdrive sooner. But then if I had less Torque then I probably would need to use all 5, but as it is I can be in overdrive at somewhere between 25 and 35mph.

Less HP has a break even point, to where once you have too little HP or torque you have to adjust the gear ratio to point you give up mileage to be able to move the car. My 79 Mustang has a 2.3L 4 cylinder and it got less mileage than my friends 5.0L V8, simply because the car was too heavy for the engine and I always had to downshift on even small hills where the larger engine just cruised right on up them.

Larger wheels can save a little if you have low rolling resistance tires on them, but you give up ride comfort. Also many of these short sidewall tires result in more damage to the rims because they have less there to prevent the rims from hitting pavement when you hit a pothole. Also to maintain a proper amount of acceleration you have to gear the drive train down to make up for the larger wheels. Increase wheel diameter without decreasing the gearing and you will lug the engine down.

More cars instead of SUVs, that comes down to consumer choice. If consumers want SUVs then car companies are going to make more so they sell more. Why make a lot of cars that won't sell and have them just sitting on the lots. You have to change consumer preferences before this will happen.

Less heavier cars, difficult to continue to reduce weight when more safety and emission equipment are mandated to be added. Catalytic converter, air pump, air bags, crumple zones, they all add weight. You could cut weight by putting in seats like in the military HUMVEEs which are a simple piece of canvas stretched across a tubular metal frame, but who would buy those?

CVT, not sure on those I haven't studied them much, but I do know they are more complicated than a simple manual transmission so you have to consider price on that at least.


RE: Why not...?
By Qapa on 11/1/2011 8:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
7 shifts: I drive mostly on highways and am usually going 4k-5k rpm because I don't have anything above 5th gear. So I could be cruising at 2k-3k rpm and spending less.

HP: I'm considering the 200 or something HP average the US has. I'm not saying only offer 2 HP cars (referring to: citroen 2cv :P). But, mine is a family car: mitsubishi lancer 1300 with just 74HP and it has plenty of HP. Other than "work" vehicles, above 100HP is just for the "fun" factor.

More cars than SUVs + Lighter cars: Consumer choice is a funny thing, because it is also driven by what the consumer is offered. So stop blaming consumer and make better offers. Also you guys have lobbies making sure that:
- lighter cars are ill perceived by consumers because in accidents their occupants should be killed more than they kill - what a great argument right?
- lower cars (e.g.: a car vs an SUV) are ill perceived by consumers because in accidents their occupants should be killed more than they kill - what a great argument right?
So, if your lobbies stop trying to make foreign cars look bad with stupid reasons - because some smaller cars may be much more secure than bigger heavier SUVs - public would already be going for more cars than SUVs and for lighter cars.
Again - consumer is not the source of all evil - educate them correctly and they become the solution.


Time To Go On A Diet
By th3pwn3r on 11/1/2011 9:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
If you want better fuel economy start getting rid of all the luxuries first. Cars need to go on serious diets these days. The average American wouldn't do much harm if he or she dropped a good 30lbs off of their body. The 1988 Honda CRX was good for 40-45 MPG BUT it was just made to get from A to B and you didn't get from A to B looking like a fancy lad or being very entertained along the way. There are plenty of ways to increase fuel economy but people don't want to sacrifice their cushy, comfy rides so 20mpg it is. My car has no radio, no speakers, a light weight Braille battery, CF hood, light weight wheels, no interior and it's all done for performance. I understand this isn't practical for most people BUT my car does exactly what it was primarily made to do, get me around when it's too far of a walk or I don't have the time to walk.




RE: Time To Go On A Diet
By Dr of crap on 11/1/2011 10:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, I never thought of making all the fattys go on a diet and reduce the weight the car has to haul around.
They are not putting spares in cars now to save 30 pounds, so if the big guys lost 50 pounds, not only would mpgs go up, but food consumption goes down - it's a win / win!

NO RADIO! - HOW can you navigate traffic without blasting the songs to keep your BP in check? Without some blasting tunes, I have crashed into those stupid drivers be now!

But you are right. Most cars are more kushy than the driver's house. I buy a semi-stripped down model to save $$ and mpg, but it NEEDs to have AC and a sound system!


By bildan on 10/31/2011 1:19:29 PM , Rating: 3
Sleeve Valve engines were popular in the 1930's and 40's. The British Bristol Centaurus aero engine was a very successful sleeve valve design.

The driving idea behind sleeve valves was to remove the hot exhaust valve from the combustion chamber so one point higher compression ratio could be used with the same fuel without "knock". Benefit: more power, better economy.

Sleeve valves also made cylinder heads much lower so the diameter of aero radial engines could be much smaller reducing frontal area.

An unexpected side benefit was significantly reduced piston-cylinder friction which helped still more. Since the sleeves are constantly "nutating" there is no point where the piston stops in relation to the cylinder eliminating "sticktion".

Back in the day, the one unsolved problem was high oil consumption due to poor sealing of the sleeves. Perhaps that problem could be solved with today's metals and elastomers.




yup...
By chromal on 10/31/2011 12:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is most likely why Mazda switched from 5w-20 to 0w-20 in its 2011 Mazda3's.




By Beenthere on 10/31/2011 1:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
This is nothing new. What is new is the absurd - impossible to meet new CAFE standards. As such we will all pay dearly to subsidize EVs and hybrids, as that's the only way car companies can meet the outrageous pie-in-the-sky CAFE stds.




Reality
By bbcdude on 10/31/2011 2:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is the reality of the automotive industry. The Mouth pieces in power are talking up 20-30 mpg increases they pull out of their posteriors and the R&D departments at the car makers are looking at tech to gain .1 mpg.

There is no way to meet the 50+ mpg fleet standards except for making most of your fleet tiny hybrids. If it was possible the car makers would have already done it in order to grab market share. Who wouldn't buy a truck or sedan that could get 2x the economy they get now?

We all know the reality is not that they will all make hybrids to meet cafe, the reality is that when car prices are going through the roof and they still cant meet it, politicians will back it off to avoid getting turfed in the next election.




At what cost?
By YashBudini on 10/31/2011 10:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of years ago Honda placed "low tension" rings in their V6s. Some owners are going through a quart of oil as often as every 1500 miles. Honda won't take responsibility for this, claims it is "normal". Try telling that to someone who uses a synthetic oil. Just Google for it and view the results, no need to take my word for it.

Unfortunately Toyota is going down this same path this year with their V6. It took that AND low drag brakes to gain 1 mpg. WFD




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki