backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by Dan Banana.. on Oct 29 at 10:07 PM

Hydroforming and new welding methods help reduce vehicle weight

New CAFE standards have automakers reaching for any technology they can find to help improve fuel economy. Many manufacturers are going to electric vehicles or hybrids to increase their overall fleet mileage averages. The problem with focusing only on hybrids and electric vehicles, however, is that most consumers aren't in the market for that type of vehicle.

On traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, automakers are increasingly turning to weight savings as a way to help improve fuel economy. The lighter a vehicle can be made, the less weight the engine has to push or pull around and the less fuel it uses because engines could be made smaller without sacrificing performance.

Some automakers are even turning to removing some features of cars such as CD players and the spare tire to reduce weight according to the Detroit News. Both General Motors and Ford are turning to new processes in vehicle assembly to help remove weight from the body of mainstream vehicles.


2013 Ford Fusion
 
Many automakers are using aluminum rather than steel to help reduce the weight of their vehicles. Hoods, trunks, and lift gates as well as door skins are commonly made from aluminum today. Ford is also experimenting with carbon fiber on the Focus.

Switching to lighter materials isn't the only way automakers are going about reducing the weight of the vehicles they produce. They're also reducing weight by changing the manufacturing processes used. Ford, for instance, is using hydroforming on the steel structural pillars of its 2013 Fusion.

One of the big benefits of hydroforming is that it allows the forming of complicated and larger parts that don't need to be welded together. Traditional stamping produces multiple parts that have to be welded at joints. Those joints are points of weakness and add weight. Using hydroforming, rather than other forms of stamping, sheds 18 pounds from each car by eliminating the additional welds.

GM is also doing its part testing a thermal-forming process for lightweight magnesium that weighs 75% less than steel. GM also plans to use a patented welding technology to allow the company to integrate more aluminum into automotive bodies by saving the company from using rivets to join aluminum body panels. The use of the welding process rather than rivets will cut nearly 2 pounds from parts such as hoods, lift gates, and doors.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Bout time
By Dr of crap on 10/25/2012 10:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree, is 18 pounds reduction worth the cost?
Welding has to be cheaper then the options pointed out and being looked at.

Also so you remove 18 pounds of weight from the car to sell it to the overweight comsumer who then is sueing you for not getting the mpg numbers promised!


RE: Bout time
By zephyrprime on 10/25/2012 12:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
It may well not be worth the cost indeed but welding is probably more expensive than hydroforming and "thermal" (molding) magnesium processes due to fewer steps involved.


RE: Bout time
By Concillian on 10/25/12, Rating: 0
RE: Bout time
By Souka on 10/25/2012 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
I just love the Fiskar Karma... you'd think a sports car would be lightweight?

Well, it weighs in at a hefty 5,300 lbs!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisker_Karma

Just a FYI :)


RE: Bout time
By freedom4556 on 10/25/2012 3:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just love the Fiskar Karma... you'd think a sports car would be lightweight?


Not a sports car by any measure. It's a luxury yacht.


RE: Bout time
By GTVic on 10/25/2012 6:17:20 PM , Rating: 3
Is this a joke? 18lbs reduction over 60M cars is over 1 billion pounds of metal being saved in one year.


RE: Bout time
By Dan Banana on 10/29/2012 9:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
Where you getting the 18 lb. figure from? It's not in the article above.


RE: Bout time
By Dan Banana on 10/29/2012 10:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
OK never mind. I see it now as regards hydro-forming saving 18 lbs.per car average. All weight loss whether human or automotive it seems to me is a matter of finding multiple ways to cut the fat not just finding one magic do it all bullet. One way to cut the fat quickly for auto companies is to dump the big @ssed SUVs altogether. They are the 2012 automotive equivalent of the bed-ridden 500 lb. man that can't fit through his bedroom door any longer.


RE: Bout time
By jdietz on 10/25/2012 1:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel efficiency numbers in the US are published by the US EPA, who can't be sued. Automakers aren't liable for the EPA's actions. Automakers usually publish EPA numbers only whether they agree with them or not - this shields them from liability.


RE: Bout time
By wookie1 on 10/25/2012 3:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think it was Honda or Toyota that lost a suit in small claims court when a woman showed that she wasn't able to achieve the EPA MPG. Since car companies market their cars based on that rating, it opened the door. If I recall, some appeals court ended up overturning it, but I don't remember on what grounds. The point is, though, that it does appear that the auto companies can be sued over this.


RE: Bout time
By jRaskell on 10/25/2012 5:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Those lawsuits were prior to the current system.
At the time of those lawsuits, the methods used to rate mpg were 'best case' scenarios that simply weren't possible in the real world.
The EPA completely revamped the methods they used to compute mpg ratings in 2008, primarily because of the lawsuits and general public complaints about the unrealistic ratings that were being used.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki