A few months back, Darin and Ben (EM’s founders) asked me to review the new ScanGauge-E. I gladly accepted and tried it out for a few weeks. You can see the full review here. For the blog we’ll keep it short and to the point.

First up, we’ll look at some of the limitations of the ScanGauge-E. The first thing I noticed was that it only has one cable connector on it. The ScanGauge-II has two, one on the back and one on the front. This isn’t a big deal unless it interferes with how you want to mount the ScanGauge, or on the off chance you want to daisy chain two or more ScanGauge-Es together.

I was able to daisy chain my ScanGauge-II from my car with the ScanGauge-E on the end of the chain though.

Probably the biggest thing most users will note is that the ScanGauge-E only shows two gauges instead of the ScanGauge-II’s four gauge display. While this isn’t quite as nice, Linear Logic has done a few things to negate this limitation.

First off, they have added a bar graph to the left of the display. The graph always tracks MPG over time. However, the scale of the graph, or how it displays information is configurable. By default, the graph’s zero (halfway) shows as your trip average. Therefore you know if you’re doing better or worse than your current average. This is a pretty nice setup.

You can also set the graph’s zero point to a set MPG. They call this “GOAL”, and you can manually set whatever MPG you want as your zero point (0-255). With GOAL you can see if you are hitting the MPG you want or not. You could even set GOAL to the EPA rating of the car to see how well you’re doing compared to it. In addition, you can change the time scale of the graph to show a history of 20 seconds to 16.5 minutes.

Second, they have added gauge sets. You can scroll through the gauge sets with the left buttons. There are three default (not customizable) gauge sets, and two customizable sets. The default gauge sets show instant and trip MPG, the next shows trip CO2 emissions and today’s CO2, and the third shows trip fuel cost and today’s fuel cost. In addition to those three default gauge sets, you can make your own two custom gauge sets like you do with the ScanGauge-II. The buttons on the right cycle through the available gauges just as normal. While using the ScanGauge-E I found these gauge sets to be extremely useful. I really wish the ScanGauge-II had this same feature now.

The last things that the ScanGauge-E doesn’t have is the X-gauges, and performance features. The X-gauges are really nice if you own a hybrid since you can get info on your battery pack and a few other nifty things. I use them all the time with my PHEV Prius. I definitely don’t like to see them go. The performance features you loose out on are 0-60 timing, 1/4 mile timing, and 60-0 timing. But being fuel economy nerds, those are of little use to us anyway!

Let’s move on to what Linear Logic has added to the ScanGauge-E. It does have several features that the ScanGauge-II does not have. I already talked about the MPG graph and the gauge sets. In addition, the ScanGauge-E also calculates CO2 emissions. They have added two new gauges that calculate the CO2 emissions of your vehicle. The first one is “CO2″ on the display, it shows how many pounds/kilograms of CO2 your car has put out on the current trip. The next one is “TCO”, and it shows how many pounds/kilograms CO2 your car has put out for the entire day. In the trip meter section you can also see how many pounds/kilograms you’ve put out for the entire tank too.

In conclusion, I don’t think the SGe it is for everyone. But, it’ll be a very good fit for some people, including those looking to save money. You get almost all the features of the ScanGauge-II, but at 2/3rds the price (about $50 savings). That makes the payback much quicker. I think my ScanGauge-II paid for itself quite fast. That makes the ScanGauge-E a no brainer if you’re looking to save money. The other group of people I’d suggest this to would be the more casual ecodrivers out there. Its a nice gauge, gives lots of info and will help increase your mileage. There isn’t too much to look at on the screen; it’s smaller and fits in nooks a bit easier.

All that being said, I wouldn’t recommend the SGe to one specific group of people: the hardcore hypermilers. These folks  love info and will use every bit they can get their hands on to increase their mileage. That means needing the 4 gauges up all the time to optimize driving. I also wouldn’t necessarily recommend the ScanGauge-E to hybrid owners. The loss of the X-gauges is a big price to pay for hybrid owners who can gain a lot of functionality through them.

Of course, EcoModder sells both the ScanGauge-E and the ScanGauge-II. They can both be found in the EcoModder Store.

For the last several months, Ecomodder forum member t vago has been working on a custom aeroshell for his 2000 Dakota Quad Cab pickup truck. While many fuel conscious people will look down on pickup trucks as eminently wasteful, truck owners are a group that has uniquely embraced the spirit of ecomodding. After all, they represent one of the biggest opportunities for improvement in modern motor vehicles.

It’s true: trucks are by in large not built with fuel economy in mind. While this is lamentable, it does give ambitious ecomodders a great place to start. The most glaring deficiency of the pick up truck’s design (from a fuel economy point of view, of course), is the aerodynamics. This is where t vago’s recent efforts come in to play.

If you want the nitty gritty, you can take a look at the original thread, where t vago and others go over their plans in detail. Here we will take a brief look at the origins and progress of the project – a sneak peek into the large amount of time and effort that goes into designing and building an aeroshell from scratch.

In the next two pictures you can see t vago’s humble beginnings:

This original design was built with foam insulation and designed in Microsoft Excel (of all programs) using calculations from this paper.

Unfortunately, this original design was too weak and eventually failed, though not before t vago could quantify a 1 mpg gain.

Here are t vago’s mockups of his first, unsuccessful design, as well as his second design:

First

Second

From there, in true EcoModder fashion, many other users chimed in with design advice as well as some of their own mockups. Here is just one example of the efforts put in on this project by user NeilBlanchard:

Though it took some time to get back on track, t vago was eventually able to produce a mockup of his next aeroshell:

Initial tests with the new aeroshell demonstrated significant gains over his truck’s previous configuration:

Eventually, the cap made it from foam to a more stable, stronger version as we can see here:

The cap is still in progress as just recently t vago has noticed some possible design problems:

A couple of nights ago, I was able to view the wake of my truck with the cap installed, in the rain. I noticed what appeared to be a couple of visible counter-rotating vortices right on either side of the back of the truck. From reading Hucho and looking at the pictures that Piwoslaw has in his album, it would appear the the inward-moving air stream at the sides of my aerocap are interacting with the air stream moving rearward on the sides of the truck. I think this is forming the vortices I’m seeing.

Hopefully we will be able to see a final version of this exciting project soon. In the future we will be talking more about these unique pickup-based modifications here on the EcoModder blog, so look forward to an update on t vago’s project in our next edition!

EcoModding is all about DIY. While it’s nice to see the automakers doing their bit every so often, the things people dream up in the own garages are always infinitely more cool. The Illuminati Motor Works Seven is no different.

Runner up at the Progressive Automotive X-Prize, the Seven has recently posted impressive numbers at Chrysler’s proving grounds in Michigan. To be exact, they managed a cool 207.5 MPGe over the same course where the obviously impressive Nissan Leaf only managed to 99 MPGe.

This is an impressive feat considering that this number was posted using the official EPA test cycle for electric vehicles. Many people could squeak out that kind of number scooting around in a circle at 10 mph, but that’s not the case here.

Here are the final stats from the team’s run through the EPA test cycle:

207.5 MPGe

160.42 Wh/mile

Vehicle Weight = 2900 lbs.

Here’s some other stats for you to feast your eyes on:

Top Speed: 130 mph

0-60 Time: 8 secs

Range: 200 miles

Source: Illuminati Motor Works

Thanks, Treehugger! Last year, we won editor’s choice, and this year we got to take home the readers’ choice award for best transportation website. The editor’s choice winner this year was Green Car Congress, a fabulous blog that gives in depth looks at all the technical aspects of modern fuel economy, so congratulations go out to Mike over there as well.

To check out the results, visit Treehugger’s Best of Green.

It’s that time of year again, where Treehugger lets readers choose the best green sites on the web in various categories. As usual, EcoModder has been nominated along with our prestigious peers.

Unfortunately, however, we’re currently lagging in the votes! While each of the sites on the list is great and offers a unique set of information to a unique audience, EcoModder is the only one where you can get great DIY projects, advice, and information from fellow members across the world.

We’re really appreciate your vote, so please head on over to Treehugger!

The electric car has had a rough history in the last 100 years. Hell, the battle we are seeing now was fought out over 100 years ago. The introduction of the motor carriage opened up a new opportunity for an array of drivetrains. There was a time when steam, electricity, gasoline, and even some gas/electric hybrids (Porsche, see left) fought for supremacy in automobile motivation, and it’s easy to see who won out. Gas was cheap, plentiful and very, very powerful. Not only that, but it also was quick to refuel, and as long as there was a supply of fuel the gasoline car could go anywhere. However, the electric car was left in the dust- there were severe limitations to its range and our electric infrastructure was no where ready to supply power where needed.

Enter the last 20 years, and after learning lessons from a few fuel crises we are once again looking at the little electric car. Without conspiracy theories, the technology still wasn’t quite there for it, and the costs were too high to make a reasonable business case for much of anyone. However, in the last 5 years things have changed. We have an infrastructure that supplies electricity farther than any gas station, and a push for technology that can give birth to legitimate electric cars for mass production.

And this is where Nissan and the dowdy-looking Nissan Leaf come in. Maybe dowdy is too harsh, but it’s awkward with a reason. Nissan’s brutal GTR has a drag coefficient of .27. The Leaf, which spent more time in the wind tunnel to fine tune its shape according to the spokesman, manages a drag coefficient if .28, a massive improvement over the .31 of the Nissan Versa on which the Leaf is based on. While not totally outstanding, that is near supercar aerodynamics in a 4 door hatch back. One of the troubles engineers had to deal with was wind noise- While wind noise is a part of regular NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) concerns for gasoline cars, it’s an even bigger concern on the near-silent electric car with the lack of drivetrain noise. The bulbous headlamps on the Leaf play a role in fighting wind noise caused by the mirrors in that they’re raised several inches above the hood-line in order to split the air flow ahead of the mirrors, so that air passes over and under the mirror, instead of into the mirror. Taking advantage of the compact electric drivetrain, the low hood-line smoothly transitions into a laid back windshield, the shape as a whole contributes to the odd styling, but all in the name of aerodynamics. The wheel wells, which are small by today’s standards, house relatively small 16” wheels. The small wheel openings aid in reducing drag, and there are sharp creases along the rear flanks of the Leaf’s fenders, and with the shaped tail lights the design assists in bringing air smoothly away from the car’s rear. All of this is wrapped in Nissan’s new design language, which shares some of its DNA with their Juke. The Toyota Prius and Chevrolet Volt lean towards more conservative styling, but the Leaf is here to stand out.

For the tech geeks, the Leaf haz ze teknology. Some of the things worth mentioning are the LED headlamps, which consume less power than standard headlamps. The battery is actually 40 independent cells, each of which can be replaced if malfunctioning instead of the entire battery pack. The pack itself is surprisingly compact, but still heavy at 600 lbs. On the plus side, it’s mounted low and centered in the chassis, giving the Leaf a lower center of gravity than a standard car. And most importantly, it does not intrude into the passenger compartment, unlike the Chevy Volt’s T-bar battery which consumes the center of the interior. The interior floor appears to be just the same as it is in a gasoline car, and even still shares the vestigial hump in the center of the rear seat floor, though only an inch or two high.

Speaking of the interior, outside of the digital interfaces it’s absolutely nothing to write home about. The dash is hard plastic, but touch points are soft fabric and no better or worse than any other car in the segment, including the Corolla and Civic. I found the armrest to be a little high, and the steering wheel could use more than just up-and-down adjustment, but other than that the ergonomics are quite fine. Seats are softer than expected, but quite welcoming. And Nissan touts that most materials are made from recycled plastics. But, the juicy bits are the unique displays and controls of an electric car. Gone is a tachometer, and in comes an energy meter. Instead of displaying engine RPM, it displays how much electric power is being demanded, or alternatively when coasting how much is being regenerated. A gas gauge is predictably replaced by a battery meter, but unexpectedly is the coolant temp being replaced with a battery temp gauge. The standard PRND is replaced with a toy-like selector that pivots around 4 different positions. Center is where the shifter sits when released, moving it left and up selects reverse, moving it left and down selects drive (selecting drive again engages or disengages ECO mode), and simply moving it left selects neutral. Pressing the top button in the selector’s resting position engages park. It sounds more complex than it really is, and comes across as little more than a joy stick to select a gear. The parking brake handle is replaced with a pull-up button that electronically engages the brake. This is an electric car, everything has to be different somehow, right? Thankfully the center cluster is conventional by all means, and with in easy reach.

What is unique is when you press the “Zero Emissions” button, which brings up an array of menus on the Leaf’s LCD screen related to the electric drive and charging systems. The Leaf has taken a page out of the GTR’s wizardry, giving more bar graphs, detailed information, and charging options than the average person would know what to do with. However, like the GTR, this information is directed solely for the intended enthusiasts. G-Meters and 0-60 timers are replaced with energy consumption dials, detailing power usage by the motors, accessories like radio and climate control, and finally “other systems,” whatever those maybe. It shows real time how using the various accessories affect the range. Another nifty feature is the programming that one can apply to the Leaf. Not only can you tell it to only charge between certain hours, in order to take advantage of off-hour rates, but also when to automatically kick on the heater or A/C at a set time so that the interior is at-temp before you get into the car, eliminating the need to split the energy between both systems while driving. Another adaptation for the electric car is what is displayed on the GPS. The map has a pair of circles, which show the Leaf’s range overlaid the map. The inner circle shows the low-ball estimate of the car’s range, and the outer circle shows the outer reaches of the range. A quick zoom out quickly demonstrates how much ground can becovered on a charge, and it’s a bit of a surprise at just how far you can go on this glorified golf cart. It can also update regularly with new charging locations, and display those on screen. And, as you run the battery lower and lower, it will eventually default the GPS to show local charging stations in a passive attempt at getting you to juice it up. And you can kill it dead, there’s no back-up battery to save stupidity. There is relief though, that most major cities plan to put in place charging stations at major stores, fastfood joints, and businesses so that the car can be charged while you’re out and about. Even 440v DC “Fast chargers” are an option so that the car can be charged from 0%-80% in roughly 25 minutes. These will even be placed between various cities so that cars like the Leaf can run on longer trips, albeit with a 20 minute break during the trip. This almost sounds like a deal breaker, while keeping in mind that the Leaf is meant to be a commuter car, much of the “range anxiety” can be relieved by changing how you treat a “fill up,” meaning unlike a gas car where it’s no problem to run it down near empty and refill it, it’s a good habit to top-off the Leaf where ever it can charge.

Introductions aside, it’s time to drive. Coming into this, it must be said that I drove to the event in a 1969 Chevrolet CST/10 pickup. It’s loud, rough, and has enough 40 year old components remaining that it shakes, rattles, and rolls down the road with quite a presence. I get into a Leaf, adjust my seat, and start to poke around for the “start” button when I’m told it’s already running. I know this is an electric car, but it’s still…odd… to hear nothing. When you do actually “start” the car, it does play a little juke while lighting up the gauge cluster to let you know that it’s actually on. The throttle is a bit spongy at low speed, but the Leaf’s instant 200 ft lb of torque makes its presence known if you dive deeper into the throttle. It’s an experience unlike any other car. Even though it’s an electric car, you can find an excuse for traction control at speeds where most 4 bangers are still building steam. Off the line it surges with authority, and thanks to the lack of a transmission, it steams right on up with an uninterrupted, slightly sci-fi soundtrack from the electric motor. No peaking power bands, no shifting… Just forward. And during all of this, the Leaf is beautifully smooth, quiet and dare I say; graceful. During cruising you’re more likely to hear the hum of the A/C blower motor than you are of the drivetrain. Wind noise is well controlled, an achievement that the reps were very proud of. It’s a level of cabin noise that’s surely lower than the best luxury cars, an interesting side effect to the electric drivetrain. It may still use a dated suspension, but the ride is well controlled and the handling is surprisingly quite precise and a little tossable thanks to the low center of gravity.

And it creates quite the proposition for future drivetrains. Here we have a $25,000 car with NVH levels competitive with cars twice its cost. A premium experience, in this regard. Without pistons violently thrusting up and down and transmissions jumping through gears it provides smooth thrust that will never be matched by a piston engine. Not even a CVT can provide the smooth responsiveness that the direct-drive electric motor gives. It gives a small car a level of refinement that manufacturers can only dream of with a gas engine, especially to the bread-and-butter cars. To the average consumer there’s less maintenance to worry about; there’s no oil to change, emissions systems to inspect, or cooling systems to worry about. Brakes are even given a lengthy life span thanks to their job being shared with the regenerative braking/charging system. In the future land of beige, it’s easy to see electric cars cross-shopped with Corollas, Cruises, and Civics. Its price is competitive with them, for instance to get the options that you get in the Leaf, a comparable 2011 Honda Civic runs the MSRP of just under $25,000. And other than out-right range, it just does everything better than they can. With all off this, and the fact that you’ll never buy gas for the damn thing, it starts to make sense, even financially. The current short comings of electric cars are solvable problems in time. Nissan has committed to designing the battery pack to be replaceable with future innovations, and designing the unit so that future Nissan EVs with more advanced batteries can have their guts transplanted into the Leaf, keeping older models relevant in 5-10 years.

However, there must be time taken to look at it from an environmental approach. And to me, it’s one that has few grounds to stand on. Whileelectricity has the advantage of being DIRT CHEAP (Even if gas was under 1.50/gallon, the cost to run the Leaf off your house is still cheaper, according to Nissan’s statistics), it’s not clean energy for the majority of the US. Roughly 48% of our electrical energy comes from coal. Only 7% comes from renewable resources, such as wind or hydroelectric power. Ever notice that any Nissan advertisement with Zero Emissions* has an astric? Their ad campaign is built on the fact that there are zero *tailpipe emissions. While you do have to consider the lack of pollutants being burned by the car, it must be said that it’s not free and clear from pollution. Granted, the extra demand for electricity from the cars will be insignificant for now, and the expansion of cleaner energy such as nuclear, and fuel cell technology in the future can be the better answer to that problem. The batteries are a point of scrutiny in most cars, but Nissan claims that they are recyclable, and even if the cells become too weak for automotive use, they can still be used for stationary applications as energy storage. One last point of contention on Lithium Ion batteries is the fact that the materials have to be mined. Keep in mind, so does the material for your cell phone, iDoodad, laptop, and high-performance R/C car. We’re already mining the materials, it’s wrong to scrutinize the electric car battery when lithium already powers an array of other devices in our lives.

So what does this mean for the piston engine? It means nothing in the short run, but maybe everything in the long run. The electric car is just moving past the point of being a novelty; it’s now a legitimate player. It’s the birth of a new era for the automobile, one that’s deprived of cam shafts, valves, pistons, and gasoline. It’s strange to think that there is going to be a time where the familiar exhaust note is nowhere to be found in new cars. And in part it’s because the electric motor can accomplish everything we want piston engines to do; flat torque curve, smooth power delivery, low noise, low maintenance, efficiency and low center of gravity. As time progresses, outright performances gets better and better as well (Fisker and Tesla want to show you). While the source of power may change and evolve (to one that doesn’t rape the land for battery materials with the impression of environmental goodness), the electric drivetrain is going to make its comeback over the next century.

The 20th century will always be the rise of the gasoline engine. Maybe the 21st will be the rise of the electric motor.

Okay, I know the photo isn’t great, but I didn’t have much time to snap a picture on my phone and the car had already disappeared by the time I returned. For those of your who can’t quite make out the photo, it is of a Nissan Leaf standing in the taxi line. While I have seen several Mitsubishi iMiEVs running around town here in Japan, this is the first time I’ve seen Nissan’s EV offering in regular service.

While the car was adorned with markings of “EV Taxi” and the like, it was clearly a regular service vehicle, picking up fares at normal rates along will all the other taxis. This is an important test of the EV platform, as taxis are a large contributor to downtown air pollution and fuel use, as their regular service cycle includes hours of idling and heavy stop and go traffic. If EVs can effectively replace gas vehicles as taxis, it will be a big step forward for air pollution issues in cities across the world.

However, there is one big issue standing in the way of widespread EV use for taxis – battery recharge takes time. While a normal gasoline vehicle can be filled up in a few minutes after several hours of work, EV charging can take hours and if rushed can lead to eventual battery damage or a reduction in total cycles.

Unfortunately I couldn’t get out the door fast enough to get a ride, but next time I see one on the street we’ll go for a spin and see how the Leaf stacks up against your average Japanese taxi cab (aka, the Toyota Crown).

Sure, while we like to call it ecomodding (with no hyphen), we’re still happy that the term is poised to jump the shark as it is begins to be used by mainstream media companies. Not only are we glad to see PM picking up on the term, but they’ve applied it to factory changes made GM on the Chevy Cruze, as opposed to the usual aftermarket modifications done by the dedicated ecomodders you find both on and off this site.

So cheers, Popular Mechanics, for picking up on the best automotive trend in the last several years.

EDIT: I’ve been told I don’t know what “jumping the shark” means. This is true. But let’s just pretend I meant we’re so cool we don’t want the mainstream media catching on to it, .

[singlepic id=130 w=560]

Infrequently do we find a homebuilt car that is well-designed, aesthetically appealing, environmentally friendly, and inexpensive. In Dave Cloud’s Dolphin — originally discussed (with many more photos) in the EcoModder forum — we find that all our expectations for a homebuilt EV are surpassed. That’s probably because Dave has had his fair share putting together electric cars, having done over 45 conversions.

While the Dolphin may look like nothing you’ve ever seen before, the base vehicle is a 1997 Geo Metro, one of the classical examples of frugal driving. There are plenty of examples of Geo Metros being converted, but none are quite as unique as the Dolphin (if you need more examples, check out our very own ForkenSwift).

The Dolphin was put together for a miserly $3,000, but can do impressive things for the meager amount of money that was used to create it. Running on used batteries, the car managed a 70mph top speed and overall range of upwards of 80 miles, despite the fact that curb weight is well over 3000 pounds. The Dolphin is designed for highway cruising, lacking a transmission and geared to top out at 71 miles an hour. While this does allow for efficient highway cruising, it makes low speed operation and acceleration inefficient, dragging down the vehicle’s overall impressive numbers.

[singlepic id=138 w=560]

Here’s a quote direct from Dave Cloud on the comprises that were made to keep the project under budget:

Another thing I would like to clarify is that my goal was to build a vehicle that can go 200 miles on a single charge with a speed of 60-65 mph for 85% of the miles, for under $3,000. I accomplished this goal. Because of my $3,000 limitation I made a lot of compromises in the chassis design hoping that the aerodynamics of the vehicle would make up for those inefficiencies. Inefficiencies such as front wheel bearings that rumble, back tires that are 10 years old and misshapen, single speed dual series motors (that were $100), no re-gen and inexpensive Curtis controllers.

Using the conversion factor listed on Wikipedia (33.4 kWh/gal) and Dave Cloud’s own estimates of power usage, the Dolphin clocks in at an amazing 214MPGe, beating everything on the road (and everything likely to be on the road in the near future). While this is an amazing vehicle, it’s unfortunate it was built for a specific EV distance challenge and will probably not be explored in depth in the future.

Here are the Dolphin’s in depth stats (found on EValbum):

Basic Vehicle: 1997 Geo Metro

Motor: Advanced DC 203-09-4001 Series Wound DC 2X “Shorty’ version of typical 8″ ADC motor

Drivetrain: 8″ ADC motor on each rear wheel, with independent battery packs and controllers

Controller: Curtis 1209B-6402 72 Volt, 400A

Batteries: 60 Interstate Various, 12.00 Volt, Lead-Acid, Flooded Group 56 BLEM batteries, 33 lbs ea.

Voltage: 72V

Top Speed: 72 mph

Range: 200 miles

Watt Hours/mi: 162 wh/mi

Weight: 3,200 lbs

—

More information:

• Check out the EcoModder forum discussion about this car, with much more information & photos, including several posts by the builder.
• For more on Dave Cloud, check out the below videos:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhIhdLKKTI

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yravv7jT-jE&feature=player_embedded

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTqcb0bLv1I&feature=player_embedded

[imagebrowser=11]

It was just the other day when I was regaling a few friends with an account of the time that California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, almost walked right over me while I was taking a photo. I was alerted that Gov. Schwarzenegger had just visited Japan to check out the shinkansen (high speed rail) system we have here, which made for a very kitsch news piece about Schwarzenegger towering over everyone present during his inspection.

While the shinkansen was theorized in many years before actually being built in Japan, the project really came together when it got government backing in 1958. From that point, it only took 6 years to open the main line, stretching from Kyoto to Tokyo to the public, in 1964. Since then the line has been aggressively upgraded with new extensions added to bring most of the country into the reaches of the system. For more about the history of the shinkansen, check out wikipedia.

I’m sure you’re all thinking, “So what? That was then, this is now. The issue in the Northeast is complicated especially by all the existing, modern infrastructure.” That’s true, so let’s compare it to a modern example of shinkansen building in Japan, which, as luck would have it, is happening right in my back yard. The project to which I refer is the Kyushu shinkansen line stretching from Fukuoka to Kagoshima.

This project has taken a bit longer, with the inaugural stretch from Yatsushiro to Kagoshima City taking from 1991 to 2004. Progress here, of course, was slowed by the mountainous terrain in Japan’s westernmost reaches. However, major construction on the Kumamoto section of the rail only began in the last few years and is scheduled to be completed on March 12th, 2011, meaning that hundreds of kilometers will be spanned by completely new rail in just a few years.

Back to the U.S., ABG reports that Amtrak is planning on building a high speed rail stretching from Boston to Washington D.C.. The proposed line would cut the commute by train from over six hours to less than four.

I’m sure there are many good reasons why they are predicting a project on the East Coast could take 30 years to complete. Expenses, construction equipment, location, etc. all factor in to such a protracted timeline. However, if you really want to cut to the quick of the issue, it’s all about priorities. It might cost more, it might be loud and noisy, but if we really wanted a convenient, fast, low-impact transit solution between Boston and Washington D.C., we could have it in 10-15 years.

So the real question is, how much is an extra 15-20 years of high speed rail worth to commuters and taxpayers? I’m no engineer, but doubling the cost and floating some debt might be worth it to give our aging transportation infrastructure along the coast a full two decade jump ahead of the current best estimate.

Photo credit: laszlo photo

This post is a continuation/generalization/more organized version of my earlier blog post.

There are a lot of improvements possible for internal combustion engines (aka ICE’s).  It helps to list the areas that are causing losses, to start:

– The geometry of the physical layout of the piston, connecting rod and the crankshaft is less than ideal.  The connecting rod needs to be ~60 degrees past top dead center to get the best leverage on the crankpin; but the pressure from the fuel ignition occurs much earlier than this; when the connecting rod is essentially trying to bend the crankshaft sideways.  The motion of the piston is necessarily sinusoidal.

- The power stroke is only 25% of the full cycle, and there is a lot of mass that has to be accelerated, stopped and accelerated again.

- The valvetrain has to physically resist being moved, and it has to work against the air flows.

- The piston tends to scrape the sides of the cylinder, because it would “rather” twist that stay straight.  The rings must exert friction on the cylinder.

- The oil must be pumped through little tiny passageways.

- Electricity must be generated.

- An ICE is a self-powered air pump, in essence.  Air flow and the pressures generated, and the cyclical nature of them cause resonances, and backpressures, and the gasses become spring-like.

- Small volumes, like the space above the top ring and the top edge of the piston, trap unburned fuel because the flame cannot reach it.

- Everything flexes and springs — the crankshaft and the camshaft flex torsionally and longitudinally, the piston vibrates and distorts, as do the cylinders.  Valves bounce and stretch and distort into potato chip shapes.

The list goes on…  The net result is a typical internal combustion engine that uses ~20% of the energy in the fuel for output motion at best, and requires a transmission to keep the torque of the engine relatively close to the speed of the vehicle.

So, knowing all this, how can we make incremental or wholesale improvements?

+ Offsetting the crankshaft center away from the power downstroke gives the connecting rod some better mechanical leverage — but is the compression stroke adversely affected?

+ Variable valve timing allows the torque to be available over a broader range of RPM’s.

+ Valves can be electrically/hydraulically moved in both directions (opened and closed) to avoid fighting the springs.  This also makes it easier to use subtle or more abrupt adjustments to the valve timing.

+ Use cams rather than the crankshaft, to gain a lot more mechanical leverage, and to allow the piston motion to be controlled by the designer; like the Revetec:

Revetec trilobate cam drive animation

This particular design also reduces piston scrape (but it introduces some tendency to rotate the piston within the cylinder).  It also avoid big changes in crankcase pressures (in configurations with even numbers of pistons).  This design effectively doubles the efficiency.

+ Use the Atkinson valve timing, like the Prius does, which has a lot of overlap of the exhaust valve with the beginning of the intake downstroke (I think?) so that there is built in exhaust gas recirculation (aka EGR).  This also effectively doubles the efficiency.

Hmmm, how well would a 2-cylinder Revetec with Atkinson cycle and electrically activated valves work?

+ Use a rotary design that reduces the reciprocal motion.

+ Use a 2-stroke design to cut the parasitic losses in half.

++ Use a continuous burn design to further reduce the cyclical nature of the engine; or at least reduce the time between power cycles.

+ Figure out how to reduce waste heat from being produced, and then try to use the remaining excess heat to produce output.

What are other ideas to improve ICE’s?

<<<<   >>>>

While power plant efficiency is a very important factor to the overall vehicle’s efficiency, there are lots of ways to improve the rolling chassis, as well.

Rolling efficiency is the most basic function of any vehicle; however it may be powered.  This involves:

* Tires, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension, wheel alignment (loaded and in motion).

* Ride height and attitude — both of these are critical to good aerodynamic drag, and we should not leave them to chance.

* All aspects of aerodynamics: overall shape and size, specific details, ventilation of the passenger compartment, motor/drivetrain cooling/temperature control.  By using good passive air management, we can both improve the air flow around and through the vehicle; and avoid needing a power input to actively solve these requirements.

* Weight and friction of all moving parts (if you can avoid power steering and power brakes, this reduces the losses of operating the vehicle).

+ Temperature stability affects a lot of things: the people, and the drivetrain in particular.  Learning from buildings, we should use insulation and low-e glazing to help stabilize the temperatures.

+ Braking should be regenerative: either electrical whenever possible, or, we should use hydraulic motors and a small accumulator; instead of friction brakes which produce waste heat.

+ Especially if the brakes are regenerative hydraulic, then the suspension should also be regenerative; and use the shock pistons to also pressurize the accumulator.  If possible, the entire suspension springing should be hydraulic, I think.  Because flexing springs also produce waste heat.  Alternatively, the suspension could be electromagnetic.

Can you add to this list of improvements, please?

Remember the Tornado? That little piece of foil you stuck instead your car’s intake with the hope of improving your fuel economy? Despite the fact that I still see one from time to time at the local car parts store, I’m thankful to say that this ill-advised craze has passed, for the most part.

However, there seems to be a grassroots revitalization of the tried and true “put some junk in your intake and increase fuel economy 150%” formula for selling these scams. Recently, I noticed one, known as the Gadgetman Groove, has gotten a local NPR reporter to take the bait.

This scam sports all the warning signs of your classic fuel economy scam:

• Claims to work on any vehicle, regardless of fuel type;
• Takes almost no time;
• Increase power, fuel economy, while reducing emissions;
• Is cleverly overlooked by every vehicle manufacturer in every model of vehicle ever made;
• Uses current events (this time, the oil spill) as well as fuel prices in order sell the product;
• Claims scientific proof, but presents none;
• Offers to turn you into a distributor of the product/service.

If you want to know more, don’t hesitate to check out the gadgetman’s site, but please, don’t swallow the medicine on this one. If you need an in depth discussion of these issues, please check out Tony’s Guide. For those of you who don’t want to do the reading, here’s his summary:

So in summary:

• Engines already have high levels of turbulence, and the physics is well understood
• Adding more turbulence can give only a tiny fuel economy benefit – this is proved by experiment
• Ignition must be adjusted to suit the faster burn, or the effect will be worse economy
• Increased turbulence at full load will most likely damage the engine unless the ignition is retarded
• Anything in the inlet manifold is extremely unlikely to affect in-cylinder air motion anyway

I think that the X-Prize competition is fulfilling the objective of focusing on vehicle efficiency.  Starting with the results so far, I am hoping to contribute to the discussion and to the process.

Here’s the link to the PDF that shows the results of the X-Prize Knockout Round.

The measured MPGe of the teams in this round — remember this is the Combined number from the City, Urban, and Highway tests:

American HyPower    54.5    Hybrid
Spira        84.8    ICE (E10)
FVT eVaro        152.5    Hybrid (serial)
Zap        111.0    EV
Tata        134.3    EV
Electric Raceabout    128.1    EV
AMP         86.7    EV
West Philly (MS)    63.5    Hybrid
West Philly (Alt)    53.7    Hybrid
Global-E        50.4    Hybrid
Li-ion         182.3    EV
Aptera        140.1    EV
TW4XP        107.0    EV
WWU        92.5    Hybrid
Tango        86.8    EV
BITW        51.1    ICE (diesel)
X-Tracer (#72)    180.0    EV
X-Tracer (#79)    188.8    EV
Illuminati        119.8    EV
Enginer        53.0    Hybrid (electric/ICE w/ steam heat recovery)
Edison2 (#95 Alt)    97.0    ICE (E85)
Edison2 (#97 MS)    101.4    ICE (E85)
Edison2 (#98 MS)     80.3    ICE (E85)

I think these results speak for themselves!  The electric cars are in general, giving much better efficiency, and several of those (the X-Tracer, FVT, Tata, and the Aptera) also have excellent acceleration.  The Li-ion,  Illuminati, TW4XP, and Edison2 (among others) were not as quick — the Li-ion and Edison2 cars are through to the finals, though.  I am sad that neither the FVT eVaro nor the Illuminati Seven made it through, due to (relatively) minor technical reasons.  They failed at the moment (which is how racing/competitions work, to be sure), but I think their problems are solvable, and the strong merits of their vehicles are obvious.

The Aptera is through, but still a bit disappointing — it’s aero is equal or better to anybody (save the X-Tracer), but their efficiency seems to have suffered.  It barely betters the Tata, which is “just” a well executed EV conversion of a decent but ordinary hatchback.  The Global-E had an ignition mapping error that made their number lower.

So the lowest MPGe of an electric drive; the AMP’d Sky was 86.7MPGe (Tango was 86.8), while the best of a car with an internal combustion is the Edison2 #97 at 101.4.  (Actually, the FVT has a ICE powered generator onboard, but did not need it *at all* in the X-Prize. It would be great to see how the eVaro does for MPGe in charging mode!)  The hybrids all were all below the 67MPGe — except the WWU at 92.5 (and the FVT).

The average of the 12 vehicles using electric drive MPGe (I’m including the FVT in this) was 134.7MPGe
The average of the 6 hybrids (not including the FVT) was 61.26MPGe (please note, these are all parallel hybrids?)
The average of the 5 internal combustion drive cars was 82.92MPGe

The X-Prize results table does not include weights, but I daresay that the average weight of the internal combustion cars was lowest (the Edison2 and Spira are all much lighter!).

The best aero drag is on the X-Tracer, followed by a very close group including the Aptera, Edison2, Li-ion.

As many have said, the X-Prize is setting a very high standard (which is both good and bad).  They are essentially looking for the complete package, and virtually no glitches.  Even the well financed/professional teams had several glitches.  I would have set up the X-Prize a bit differently; to measure (and therefore emphasize and encourage) the four main things that need to be improved to get the maximum efficiency.

Those four critical things are; from most important to least important (as I am interpreting the Knockout results):

* Drivetrain Efficiency
* Aerodynamic Drag
* Weight
* Rolling Efficiency

I would have scored these in relative terms, which pits each vehicle against the others (rather than setting standards that are somewhat arbitrary).  On drivetrain efficiency, I would either use a dynamometer or the best result of the three economy tests: the City, Urban, or Highway.  (This will indicate what vehicle is good for a particular role, and measures the drivetrain at it’s best.)

For Drivetrain Efficiency, the points awarded would be the best MPGe x Number of Seats.  So, using the Overall MPGe for 23 vehicles that competed in the Knockout Round listed above (we do not have the separate measured results from the City, Urban, and Highway test): the X-Tracer #79 would be 188.8 x 2 = 377.6 points, and so on.  The best mainstream MPGe was the Illuminati Seven: 119.8 x 4 = 479.2 points.

Aerodynamic Drag would use the Weight and the Rolling Efficiency, and the results of a Coastdown test to determine the Cd of each car.  I would take the inverse of the number of entrants divided by the Cd, then multiplied by the Number of Seats: So the Aptera and the Li-ion and the Edison2 alternate cars may be at the top: 23 (22, 21) / 0.15 x 2 = ~306.6 and ~293.3 and ~280 points respectively.  The Edison2 mainstream cars would get 20 and 19 (or higher depending on their Cd) resulting in 20 (19) / 0.15 x 4 = 533.3 and 506.6 points respectively.

For Weight, I would take the lightest one and score it by inverting the number of Entrants x the Number of Seats – the Spira would get 23 x 2 (seats) giving it 46 points.  The Edison2 alternate car would be next with 22 x 2 = 44 points.  The two Edison2 mainstream cars would be 21 x 4 = 84 points and 20 x 4 = 80 points respectively; and so on.  This give priority to the cars that seat more people, and it is realistic in terms of what is achievable in the real world.

Rolling Efficiency includes tires and alignment and would be prorated for weight – a slower coastdown test using a ramp would be needed.  I think an inverted number of the entrants would be a fair way to award points.

Obviously, all four of the critical factors are interrelated, and they all would be reflected in the Overall MPGe number – but testing for them and awarding points (in some manner) for them separately, helps focus the designs on the most important aspects – and more importantly helps demonstrate their performance; whether or not the designs get ALL of them right and in the right balance, and if there is something that lags (or breaks) and the vehicle is DQ’d, people will still be able to judge the merits of the design.

We could quibble about how each of these was scored – I am just throwing this out there.  At this moment in time, I feel that the emphasis on the safety, and meeting the letter of the rules, etc. are  distracting the designers from the main point; of maximizing the efficiency.  Obviously, for a finished, production, reasonably priced, appealing vehicle – ALL of these things are also critically important.  These would be determined by finished vehicle, and the buying public.  But, I feel that an emphasis on the overall efficiency, and the four most important factors that directly contribute to maximum efficiency, would have better served the purposes of the X-Prize.

One of the most important things I learned while I was at the X-Prize Knockout competition was: do not dismiss or ignore anybody!  There is a LOT more than meets the eye with all of the entrants, and no matter the results, all the designs have strengths – and weaknesses that are all very informative.

I also was floored by the height of passion by so many people.  The sight of Oliver Kuttner with tears streaming down his face; returning from the starting line of the City Test with the first of his cars about to actually get to the heart of the matter; moves me to tears, as well.  And I’m quite sure that every person involved in the X-Prize, who has put in a similar Herculean effort, feels the same.

This year, for the first time ever, EcoModder has been nominated Best of Green by the wonderful site Treehugger. From now through April 2nd, you can vote on your favorite green things here, and EcoModder can be found under the transportation category.

It’s always nice to be nominated, but it’s even better to win. So please vote for us!

Dutch efficiency enthusiast Allert Jacobs has converted his new Honda motorbike into a streamliner capable of getting over 200 mpg (US) cruising at 55 mph.

The Honda ANF125i Innova was pretty efficient right out of the box, since it followed the basic formula for low fuel consumption: small size + light weight + modest engine power.

The bike tips the scales at just 231 lbs (105 kg) and features an efficient, fuel injected, four stroke 125cc single, producing 9 hp (6.85 kW).

With those specs, the Honda already offered great fuel economy:  Allert’s first five fill-ups delivered 133 mpg (US) (1.8 L/100 km) over 638 miles (1027 km).

(With a disclaimer: he figures that’s better than “normal” because he was babying the bike while breaking it in.  He says a more realistic figure for his driving is 114 mpg (US) – that’s what he got from the last two fill-ups before he started modifying it.)

Q: How do you get from 114 mpg to over 200 mpg?
A: aerodynamics first (and gearing second)

Being a long time cyclist, motorcyclist and velomobile enthusiast, Allert intuitively understands what many people either don’t know or greatly underestimate: the enormous impact of aerodynamics on fuel consumption.

Unlike the average person, he is not surprised by the fact that a typical car burns 50% of its fuel overcoming air resistance at just 40 mph (64 km/h).  Or that the higher drag of a typical motorbike means half of its fuel is used to overcome air drag at just 15 – 20 mph (24 – 32 km/h)!

Custom aerodynamic fairing:  velomobile influence (version 1)

Allert knew he could significantly reduce the amount of power required to go down the road by lowering the rider’s position (reducing exposure to the oncoming air) and then reducing turbulence by adding smooth fairings.

His extensive experience designing and producing recumbent bicycles and fully enclosed recumbent velomobiles obviously prepared him for this project.  (Above photo: Allert’s commercially produced Quest velomobile, a pedal-powered trike)

Diving in feet first

Reducing frontal area showed immediate results.  To get a feet-forward position on the Honda, a new seat was mounted in the bike’s step-through area, and the foot pegs and controls were moved to just above the front wheel.  The front wheel itself was enclosed, and another fairing was added ahead of the rider.

(Most motorcycle owners have probably experienced the benefit of reducing frontal area and drag, simply by tucking down at higher speeds and feeling the bike speed up without moving the throttle.  It’s a good demonstration that shows  aerodynamics isn’t only about fuel economy!)

On his first test drive, the drag reduction was obvious.  Even lacking critical bodywork needed to smooth airflow at the rear of the bike, the little Honda’s top speed went up from 90 km/h (56mph) to 110 km/h (69mph).

Taller gearing

Because the modifed bike now required less energy to go down the road than the stock version, its gear ratios could be optimized: engine RPM could be lowered for a given speed that would have lugged the engine before the aero mods.  Reducing engine speed normally improves fuel economy.

With the new sprockets in place, fuel economy was now up to 152 mpg (1.55 L/100 km) over 1901 miles of riding (3059 km).

But Allert wasn’t happy!  He wanted more…

Lessons learned from version 1

• Stability issues with the front wheel fairing: side winds were affecting stability, because steering force was being transmitted to the forks.  “It turned out to be very scary to ride even with as little as 3 Beaufort (about 10mph) side wind.  I did not dare to go over 35mph.”  That would have to change.

• Manual clutch conversion: with the taller gearing, Allert wasn’t happy with the Honda’s stock semi-automatic shifting.  He added a clutch lever & cable and converted to a full manual transmission so he could control the amount of slip needed for a smooth start, since “the first gear is now almost as long as the second gear used to be”.

• Revised aerodynamic fairings: to reach his efficiency goals, the aerodynamics of version 2 would have to be better.

Version 2: best tank = 214 mpg (US); average = 199 mpg

The photos below speak for themselves (click to zoom).  Allart spent months crafting full length bodywork, divided in two sections.  The front half slides forward in a clever setup that allows the rider to get “in” and “out” of the bike fairly easily.

The windshield is less for forward vision than a place to locate the LED turn signals to keep them out of the wind.  Allert added signals on the side mirrors as well.

He’s happy with the stability of the full length fairing compared to the first version: “A 40mph (65 km/h) side wind is no problem,” though more than that he hasn’t experienced yet.

And it works: in cool, windy weather, he managed 214 mpg (US) or 1.1 L / 100 km on a 160 mile (km) round trip.   His goal is 235 mpg on a trip cruising at 55 mph (90 km/h).  Why 235 mpg?  Because its metric equivalent (as is used in the Netherlands) would be a very impressive 1 liter per 100 kilometers.

He expects that’s possible in ideal conditions (warm & calm), though he’s not simply waiting for better weather to accomplish this feat.  He notes that the fairing isn’t entirely optimized from an aerodynamic perspective, and is also investigating potential improvements in rolling resistance (by methodologically testing different brands of tires on a custom made test rig).

When spring & summer roll around this year, I have little doubt that 1L / 100 km is in the cards for Allert Jacobs.

We’re looking forward to seeing more from this man!

(Photos: Allert Jacobs. Used with permission.)

.

For more information:

• For the latest information & photos, visit Allert Jacob’s web site documenting this project

• Follow the discussion about Allert’s work in the EcoModder forum

• Craig Vetter is one of the godfathers of motorcycle efficiency enthusiasts.  Read about his own on-going high mileage motorbike project, the Freedom Machine.

• EcoModder member Janvos has been working on similar aero & gearing mods to his Suzuki Burgman.  Follow his progress in this project thread.

More projects featuring aerodynamic modifications:

The Phil Knox fleet – 34 years of aeromodding	Aeromodded 1989 Geo Metro XFi Gets 75 mpg
Aero mods – 1930′s style – rebodied Ford Model T	Commercially produced aerodynamic pickup bed cap
5th generation Civic hatchback – improving aerodynamics	Project: making a permanent Metro Kammback extension
Daihatsu Mira aerodynamic modifications	Crazy aeromodded Metro – chopped & teardropped

I want to try to list steps that car makers could/should take to improve the fuel efficiency, in approximate order of cost:

• The most obvious improvement to cars, would be to mold the plastic on the front of the vehicle to be smooth and round, with grill openings that are sized (and placed) only as required to cool the engine. Some new plastic bumper covers and grill pieces could be snapped onto cars. Flush covers should be used on all lights. Fairing pieces could be added to side mirrors. Hood gap gaskets, and streamlined wheel covers are easy, too.

• Sealing all the seams and joints (with gaskets/backing flanges) in the high pressure areas of the vehicle, & flush side glass.

• Smooth floor pans with no sharp protrusions — this is part of the drag just as much as the parts of the car that can be easily seen. Smoothing the underside with covers (like the GM EV-1, the 3^rd gen Prius, the 1939 Maybach, as well as the VW 1 Liter car, the 1937 Schlör “Pillbug” and the Aptera).

• Transmission ratios should be optimized for efficiency at normal driving speeds. Higher gearing with 6-7 speeds would be optimal (smaller engines need more gears to work efficiently); or CVT transmissions.

• Narrower and lighter, LRR (low rolling resistance) tires should be used. Use very high quality wheel bearings (ceramic or precision steel) and make alignment robust and easy to service.

• Average & “instant” MPG displays, that are on all the time; so the driver can compare them. The new Honda Insight, the 3rd gen Prius, and some Ford models, have excellent displays that help the driver be more efficient; with different color backgrounds indicating how efficiently you are driving.

• Throttle control (rather than cruise/speed control!) that maintains even throttle in a user-set speed range, with minimal throttle increases to maintain the speed in that range. This should also decrease throttle and coast when the speed is higher than the user set range.

• Tire pressure monitor, that warns the driver when the tires get below the recommended pressure (which could be adjusted upwards if the driver wants to run a pressure up to the tire sidewall maximum).  Or better yet: fill tires with foam, so they would never deflate, and minimize rolling resistance.
  

• Efficient & effective fresh air flow through the vehicle, with intakes on a high pressure area, and exhaust vent(s) out the back of the vehicle into the low pressure wake zone, providing passive ventilation; and also reducing aerodynamic drag.

• Coat all the window glass to exclude as much heat as possible. With effective fresh air flow (see above) this may completely avoid the need for A/C (see below).

• On defrost mode, the A/C should only come on automatically at maximum defrost (if at all), and it should be on a timer of ~1 minute, and it should always be toggled on/off by the driver. I would prefer to make A/C on the defrost setting optional.

• Efficient lights such as LED’s and HID, that use a little power as possible while functioning as well (or better) than incandescent lights.

• Lower consumption electronics, such as A/C, fans and audio systems. Some/all of these could be powered by solar PV panels with a robust battery system; even in conventional internal combustion engine (aka ICE) powered cars.

• Active grill, that opens when more cooling air is needed, but remains closed – and is more aerodynamic most of the time. This can also be done passively with the right airfoil shapes that effectively closes off air flow when the velocity goes up.

• Wheel alignment and brake drag needs to be minimized, easy to adjust, and robust – to maximize rolling efficiency.

• Fully ducted engine cooling system, with the intake down low on the front, and the exhaust flows into a low pressure zone; minimizing the size of the radiator and the reducing the “internal” drag as much as possible. The Britten V1100 (racing) motorcycle is an good example of how this could work.  NASCAR has shown that for a fully ducted cooling system, you only need 16 sq in for every 100HP.
  

• Video cameras and screens in place of side mirrors. This would help a lot with aerodynamics.  An example of this starts in post #167: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/scion-xa-aero-mods-2969-17.html

• Automatic engine shut off and start up; at least with CVT (or automatic) transmissions — and possibly with standard shifts, based on having both the clutch and the brake applied? The Toyota/Scion iQ will have this feature.

• Lean burn in low vacuum conditions. Use variable valve timing to gain efficiencies.

• Store hot coolant in a vacuum insulated tank, to speed up warm-up time; a-la what the 2^nd generation Prius does. Or, do what the 3^rd generation Prius does: heat the coolant quickly using the exhaust heat. Preheating intake air would also help fully vaporize the fuel; making it higher efficiency.

• Tighten up wheel openings, and always use aerodynamically designed wheels/covers, with rear wheel skirts (at least optionally).

• Make roof racks removable. Years ago, I saw a “papoose” add-on storage system that locked onto the back of the car, with a single caster wheel to support the weight — it tucked completely into the air flow behind the car, forming a boattail; and it would be a great way to add storage space when needed; that did not affect how you drove very much. It could actually greatly improve the overall aerodynamic drag of the vehicle.

• Regenerative shock absorbers: MIT has a method of using hydraulics to drive a generator, eliminating the need for a mechanically driven alternator; or, to charge the electric drive (aka traction) batteries. These can also be used to lift and level the vehicle, to improve aerodynamics under different loads.

• Use a composite wheel/tire that has low weight, very low rolling resistance (by being strong enough to stay round), and low aerodynamic drag, no worries about inflation — and tune the suspension to work with said wheel/tire. (see item above) This could gain even more energy, since very little would be damped by the tires.

• For new 4-cylinder internal combustion engine designs, the crankshaft could be split with a hydraulic coupling that can automatically disengage two cylinders completely; saving all the pumping and friction losses, for situations when 2 cylinders are enough to provide the required torque to move the vehicle. There are also cam-driven designs that about double the efficiency of the ICE.

• Nissan is (supposedly) going to reduce their cars weight by ~15%. I think all cars could be reduced by 20-30% with smarter steel fabrications, smarter use of materials. Here’s a site that shows a steel chassis that is 25% lighter and nearly twice as stiff/strong as a conventional steel chassis:

  http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/go/news/ultra-light-steel-auto-body-ulsab-project/

• Multiple car door latches could be used to increase strength & safety of the chassis — helps to further reduce weight, increase strength & rigidity, without requiring an unusual entry method (such as the VW 1 Liter car or the Loremo).

• Make every vehicle with a plug-in electric w/ serial hybrid ICE drive train, with regenerative braking. Use a cam driven engine that spins the armature and the stator in both (counter-rotating) directions, to charge the traction batteries. The engine could have rotary valves to reduce parasitic losses. It would run at it’s ideal RPM to drive the torque load of the alternator.

• Rework the overall shape of the vehicle to reduce drag. Cd of 0.13 – 0.25 are achievable! The 1937 Schlör“Pillbug” seats 5-7 people and has a Cd of 0.13 – this car should used a model!

[singlepic id=116 w=580]

For more pictures, see the gallery at the end of the post.

The other day I finally got behind the wheel of a the much-lauded Jetta TDI, aka the diesel that could. Despite efforts from all the automakers to get diesels a favorable light in the North American market, it has always been Volkswagen holding the reins and beating back competitors.

Now, the new generation of 50-state legal diesels is selling like hotcakes while proving that fuel economy and power are not incompatible goals. Despite the fact that many manufacturers are still shying away from importing their diesels to the United States, VW has proven over the last 20 years that they are willing to stick out the relationship through thick and thin, and are finally reaping the rewards.

What is the 2009 Jetta TDI?

The flagship of Volkswagen’s diesel efforts in the United States, the 2009 Jetta TDI packs a lot of punch into the manufacturer’s stedfast sedan. After spending some time off the market due to evolving emissions regulations and the push to release 50-state clean diesels, the Jetta has returned it’s fuel economy champion to the market with a 2.0l engine delivering 140 hp and 236 ft-lbs of torque.

This car definitely isn’t your father’s Volkswagen Rabbit. Despite VW’s legacy of diesels that smell funny and couldn’t kick themselves in the butt to get up a hill, the company reinvented the TDI brand into something now more closely related with high torque and driving excitement than penny pinching and hard starts in the winter.

However, the car hasn’t completely lost its fuel economy roots. The rather large and powerful sedan still manages to impress most drivers with EPA ratings of 29 (city)/40 (highway) mpg with an automatic transmission or 30/41 mpg with a stick shift. Despite using slightly more expensive diesel gasoline, the car is poised to save drivers big over its gasoline siblings, which only manage ratings averaging 21 (city)/30 (highway) mpg.

Who should consider buying the new Jetta TDI?

Despite Volkswagen’s once-coveted position as the “car of the people,” the brand is now a little more up-market, with the Jetta TDI setting you back at least $22,270 ($1,100 more for the automatic transmission). That makes the TDI more expensive than Honda Insight and Toyota Prius hybrids.

Many buyers who are interested in fuel economy but need the space of a family sedan will likely find themselves looking at the Insight, Prius, and Jetta TDI. If thrift is all you’re worried about, the Insight or Prius will likely win, as they return better gas mileage for less money on cheaper fuel. However, that’s rarely the whole story.

The Jetta TDI is perfect for the efficiency-minded driver who desires both a spirited vehicle and a manual transmission, something the TDI distinctly offers and other fuel-efficient competitors fall short on delivering. It is this balance of fuel economy, oomph, and driving excitement that make the Jetta TDI worth looking at.

Jetta TDI Fuel Economy Report

Unfortunately for this review I was saddled with the automatic DSG transmission and did not get to take a crack at the stick shift version of the 2009 Jetta TDI. Although the automatic only averages 1 mpg less than the stick shift in the EPA test cycle, an experienced ecodriver can easily achieve much better mileage in a stick shift than an automatic.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised with my ability to surpass the EPA ratings in the DSG-transmission 2009 Jetta TDI with only mild ecodriving techniques in mostly suburban driving.

Over a few hundred miles of mostly short trips in suburban conditions I managed a respectable 41.1 mpg, 25% over the EPA combined rating of 33 mpg. To achieve this number I used only moderate ecodriving techniques mixed in with a lot of spirited driving. Though I was held back a bit by the automatic transmission, with a stick or more advanced techniques higher numbers are definitely a possibility with this car. Unlike its hybrid competitors, the TDI doesn’t struggle to soar past its EPA ratings when driven carefully.

However, during short trips and when making use of the overabundant power output of the diesel engine, mileage can be an issue, with some of my trips coming in at less than 35 mpg. As easy as it is to get great mileage with this vehicle, it is just as easy to see it all slip away during one spirited launch from a stop light.

In the end, more than many other cars’, the 2009 Jetta TDI’s fuel economy is what you make of it.

Overall Impressions of the 2009 Jetta TDI

While I focused on fuel economy during my time behind the wheel, I did not ignore the rest of the car. The 2009 Jetta TDI is a roomy, attractive sedan that is both comfortable to be in and to drive. The vehicle holds the road and gives you a feeling of confidence as you test the more spirited aspects of the car.

The 140 hp and 236 ft-lbs of torque really make themselves noticed when you put the pedal to the floor, tempting you to waste more fuel than you most likely should. When driving the car, it becomes clear that Volkswagen sacrificed a fair amount of fuel economy in the name of fun, which is sure to set the vehicle apart from some of its hybrid counterparts.

Storage room is ample and it is easy to fit five people in the car, though like many smaller sedans, it might not always be the most comfortable seating arrangement. Despite a surprisingly long trunk, I found it a little difficult to use for my normal hauling because the dimensions were narrower than I am usually treated to. Luckily, folding rear seats making hauling most things a fairly painless task.

Despite the fairly attractive gauges, I found myself constantly annoyed that the central information display would only display one thing at a time. This meant that I could only look at current fuel economy or trip fuel economy, but never both at the same time, which, as an ecomodder, left me constantly toggling between the two screens in order to get the information I needed.

The other main point of difficulty with the car was that with only 1000 miles on the odometer the stereo decided to randomly spike to 100% of volume. This made listening to the radio impossible and I eventually gave up fiddling with the knobs to turn it back down and just went without the built-in satellite radio for the remainder of the test drive. This may be an isolated incident, but for someone who still has doubts about VW’s ability to produce high-quality vehicles, it was a troublesome one.

Overall, the car was very solid and certainly wins my thumbs up as a sedan for performance, comfort, and handling.

Conclusion

If you’re looking for the most fuel-efficient vehicle you can get, the 2009 Jetta TDI is probably a bit overpowered for you. Despite the car’s ability to quite easily exceed the EPA ratings, it will still struggle to compete with hybrids like the Prius and the much more affordable Honda Insight.

However, if you’re looking for an attractive, fun, and comfortable car that can get good mileage without the attached stigma of “eco-nerdiness,” this might just be the car for you. The sedan sacrifices something in utility compared to hatchbacks like the VW Golf or Toyota Prius, but the Jetta is larger than you might at first expect and can handle all of the tasks you would expect a family sedan to be able to.

In the end, the 2009 Jetta TDI really stands alone in its attention to both fuel economy and above average performance and comfort.

[nggallery id=10]

In an effort to increase the blog’s focus on ecomodding and some of the great content that comes out of our users, I’ve decided to begin a series of posts on an ongoing project coming out of my own garage. The idea of swapping a Honda Insight hybrid drivetrain into my CRX began at this year’s Green Drive Expo, where despite my good mileage I realized I just couldn’t compete with the first generation Insight.

With that in mind I had two options: buy an Insight or ecomod the CRX. Buying an Insight would’ve been easier, but more expensive, less fun, and frankly my CRX is still in great shape. So, I decided to shop around for a totaled I could strip down for parts to recycle into my CRX.

Having found one, the swap became just a matter of doing it, which is where I currently am, and that’s where this update comes into play. The swap is half-finished, with all the old having been stripped out with the new ready to go in.

However, removing everything is clearly the easy part, with the second half of the project being the troublesome attempts to put things back together and make them play nice with each other. At this point there isn’t much to say, but in the upcoming posts I will take you through how I tackle several problems in making this whole thing come together.

Look out for upcoming posts on:

• Custom engine mounts
• Integrating the obd2 wiring system into the obd0 harness
• Adding the IMA hybrid system
• Tweaking the IRX for superb gas mileage

To stay up to date on the nitty-gritty, follow along with my project thread on the forums.

Honda has had a long legacy in racing, from its early days racing motorcycles to its recent success as an engine supplier to other top-teir racing teams. However, last year Honda ended it’s relatively short-lived F1 team under cost-cutting pressures brought on by the larger downturn in the automotive industry.

Now, Honda has taken that team of 400 engineers and put them back to work squeezing every last ounce of efficiency out of their passenger vehicles. As investment fund manager Masayuki Kubota told Bloomberg:

“Automakers that are able to spare their resources for advanced and environmental technologies will eventually become the winners at a time when one breakthrough technology will make a huge difference.”

In recent years, Honda has made a name for it’s by rejecting may of the current trends in environmental engineering like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Instead, Honda has been working hard on perfecting it’s market-leading fuel cell technology and redoubling efforts to improve the internal combustion engine (ICE).

Most companies act as if they have given up on the ICE, but according to Honda the ICE will remain the dominant form of propulsion for the next several decades. Even if Japan, America, and Europe phase out the ICE relatively quickly, emerging markets in India and China will rely on cheaper ICE technology for decades to come, making efficiency gains important to a long-term, global approach.

Honda has clearly put most of their eggs in the ICE basket and only time will tell if it pays off. Either way, Honda is certainly putting its best foot forward in accomplishing its goal.

In the pantheon of very efficient production cars, there are perhaps three Hondas that truly stand out: the first generation Insight hybrid, the lean burn Civic VX, and the CRX HF.

Recently, a CRX HF owner further cemented that car’s status on the list by achieving a stunning 118 mpg (US) in a fuel economy rally in New York state.

The rally, organized by the Adirondack Motor Enthusiasts Club (AMEC), took place August 23 over 104 miles of scenic, lightly travelled, winding roads through the southern Adirondack mountains (with admittedly very MPG-friendly speed limits of 45 to 55 mph).

It’s fair to say the 118 mpg performance that Chang Ho Kim coaxed from his modified 1989 CRX surprised event officials.  The marshalls – who observed each of the 25 competitors’ vehicles being filled to the brim both at the start and finish for the most accurate MPG calculations – brought Chang’s CRX back to the pump several times at the end to ensure they’d squeezed as much fuel as possible into its tank.

(For comparison, the next highest scores were 106 mpg (US) from an ecomodded 1998 Geo Metro/Pontiac Firefly and 90 mpg (US) from a 2000 VW Jetta TDI – more details here.)

In stock form, the 2nd generation Honda CRX HF is a good platform for fuel economy. It’s light (1830 lbs), has a small 1.5L 62 horsepower engine, and relatively tall gearing.  It’s rated at 41 city / 50 highway / 45 combined mpg (US) by the EPA’s  revised 2008 ratings.

Modifications, mechanical & racing experience helped secure win

How did Chang Ho Kim pull a 118 mpg rabbit out of his hat?  EcoModder recently spoke to Chang to shed some light on his background, his CRX and his driving techniques.

EM: Let’s start with a bit about yourself.  What you do for work & fun?

CHK: I am a mechanic in my own shop, FunHondas, in Maynard, Massachusetts.  I mostly do general repair and maintenance of Honda/Acura cars.  I do a lot of tire work as I am a preferred installer for www.tirerack.com.  You can type in zipcode 01754 to see what is said about me and my shop on their website.

For fun I like to travel and go camping with my family. I also enjoy photography.

EM: Is it true this was your first fuel economy competition?

CHK: This was my first fuel economy run.  I had never even heard of it before I saw the post from the AMEC organizers on the New England Region SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) web site.

EM: So you’ve got racing experience then?  That would explain your skill behind the wheel.

CHK: My passion has been for autocross.  I started autocrossing in 1991.  I have placed as high as 3rd place at the SCCA Solo Nationals in a HS 89 Civic Si.  Last year I campaigned a DS 00 Integra Type R.  This year I am running my ST 89 Civic Si.  I also have a STX 89 Civic Si that I have trophied with at the Solo Nationals.

Recently I started to rallycross a M2 90 Civic GSR and have been having lots of fun playing in the dirt and snow and ice.  I am currently the season points leader in M2 for NER/SCCA.  That is mostly due to the winter events where my studded Nokian Hakka5 tires do really well.  I still have a lot to learn about driving in gravel.

I have ice raced my 01 Integra Type R, autocross style, using Nokian tires and have done very well, beating the AWD cars in the studded tire class with my FWD car on studded Hakka5 tires.

EM: OK, so you’ve obviously got experience with car control & precision.  Where did you pick up your fuel saving techniques?

I spent a lot of time on the internet before the competition starting at the AMEC site and linking to many others: Aerocivic.com gave me a lot of ideas for aerodynamic modifications.  EcoModder.com gave me many tips on driving technique.

EM: Before we talk about your driving techniques, tell us a bit about your car preparation and mods.

CHK: It’s a 89 Honda CRX HF with about 150,000 miles on the odometer that I got from a client.

General maintenance before the fuel economy rally included:

• I had the AC fixed, I hate hot and muggy.
• Redline MTL in the tranny and Mobil1 0w20 in the engine.
• new Honda airfilter, cap, rotor, wires.  They all needed replacing anyway.

Modifications before the rally included:

• Tires: low rolling resistance 155/65/14 Nokian HakkaR snow tires, brand new for the event, pumped up to 50psi mounted on Honda 14×5 alloy wheels
• Shocks: Konisport, revalved with SPSS1 valving, double adjustable, shortened body, set to soft
• Springs: Ground Control coilovers with 350 front 250 rear springs.
• Lowered car 2 inches, front camber at -3.5, toe set to zero front and rear, zero thrust angle
• Front wind deflector and rear wheel skirts made from thin polycarbonate, aluminum duct tape, self tapping screws and 3/4″ aluminum band
• masking tape to cover all panel gaps / seams, passenger door handle (forgot to do the driver side door handle)
• removed passenger side mirror
• I added lightness by removing the passenger seat, spare tire and tools, floor mats
• 6 pound race battery.

EM: tell us about the driving techniques you used.

CHK: I had a small cooler with a little ice and a small towel to cool myself off as I drove with the windows closed and the AC off.

The race type suspension meant I had better momentum coming out of the turns so less need to gas after a turn.

Where safe, I took a classic race line to maximize momentum.  If I had to gas in a turn, I took the shortest line to minimize distance.

Pulse & glide where appropriate.

EM: Did you use fuel economy instrumentation?  Navigation?

CHK: The HF has an upshift light that I find annoying.  I used a Garmin Nuvi 760 to keep track of my average speed.

EM: Any plans for future economy competitions?

CHK: I suppose I have to come back in 2010 to defend my title with AMEC, but we will see what next year brings and if I still have the CRX.  If I do come back, it will probably have a boattail and I will be more careful with the fillup at the start and not spill any at the finish fillup.

EM: Chang, thanks for the interview and congratulations again on your win!

—

For more coverage of the AMEC event see the complete forum thread.