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?

Related posts:

1. Vehicle Efficiency Improvements
2. Toyota Claims Bigger Engine are Better for Fuel Economy
3. Volkswagen GX3 Reverse Trike Concept Vehicle

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

Related posts:

1. VW’s New TDI Blog (with Fuel Economy Competition)
2. One Big Reason Not to Trust “Real World” Fuel Economy Testing
3. PLX Announces New Kiwi MPG Fuel Economy Gauge

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.

Related posts:

1. “110 MPG” HP2G Mustang Kicked Out of Progressive Automotive X-Prize Competition
2. Progressive X-Prize Chooses Technical Operations Panel
3. Kammback Creator to be Inducted into Automotive Hall of Fame

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!

Related posts:

1. EcoModder at the Green Grand Prix!
2. EcoModder Takes Home 3 Wins at the Green Grand Prix
3. 4 Green Car Blogs You Need to Follow

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

Related posts:

1. Mercedes to Sell Super-Aerodynamic Cars in 5 Years
2. Honda UK Asks Customers to Eco-Test Drive the New Honda Insight
3. What Would an Aerodynamic Smart Fortwo Look Like?

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!

Related posts:

1. Vehicle & Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency Improvements (con’t.)
2. Volkswagen GX3 Reverse Trike Concept Vehicle
3. BMW Steps Up Luxury Fuel Efficiency Game with 57 MPG Diesel 3-Series

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.

Related posts:

1. EcoModder Takes Home Four Awards at the AMEC Fuel Economy Run
2. Toyota Claims Bigger Engine are Better for Fuel Economy
3. Ford Upgrades Trucks for “Super Fuel Economy”

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.

Related posts:

1. Win $100.00 in FREE Gas! Help Design my Spring Project Car
2. GM and Segway’s New PUMA Project in Action
3. New Honda Insight Already Beating Expectations

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.

Related posts:

1. Modified Honda CRX HF Scores 118 MPG in Fuel Economy Run
2. Toyota Claims Bigger Engine are Better for Fuel Economy
3. GM Engineers Say All Cars Should Have Gas Mileage Displays

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.

Related posts:

1. EcoModder Takes Home Four Awards at the AMEC Fuel Economy Run
2. Honda Uses F1 Engineers to Race Towards High Fuel Economy
3. Drive Like a Trucker for Great Fuel Economy

Luxury brands from across the globe have been working hard to offer fuel efficiency and and low emissions without compromising the creature comforts that define the luxury segment. Not only will efficient vehicles quiet some of critics of luxury brands, but they will help keep the American and European regulators from levying heavy fines on inefficient luxury brands.

At this years Frankfurt Auto Show, BMW will be kicking the competition up a notch with a 57 MPG EfficientDynamics version of their current 320d. This new vehicle will emit only 175 grams of CO2/km while having a top speed of 140 mph and making the 0-60 journey in a little over 8 seconds.

The best part is that the EfficientDynamics version won’t be any more expensive than the current 320d. The worst part being that BMW won’t be offering their most efficient car in the United States, where such an efficient option is most in need.

Source: Autopia

Related posts:

1. Audi Cross-Country Rally Touts Diesel Economy
2. Why Diesel is Not Going to be a Hit in Japan Anytime Soon
3. One Global Emissions and Efficiency Regulation to Rule Them All

This weekend marked the third annual Adirondack Motor Enthusiast Club’s fuel economy competition, which takes place on the beautiful back roads just to the west of Albany, NY.

This was the first year that EcoModder came out to the event, and it was definitely a great time. Event organizer Mike Kamm included, 7 EcoModders came to the event and competed in two of the three categories.

The course was a 104 mile loop through the Adirondacks on winding roads that challenged not just the average ecodriver, but would challenge any driver. Unlike many fuel economy courses, this one had huge hills that challenged drivers to work hard and pick up mileage wherever they could.

All told, EcoModder took home 4 of the 6 awards its members were eligible for. In the diesel/hybrid category member tasdrouille took home first place in his 2000 Jetta TDI with an astounding 90 mpg. Second place went to Matt Herring in his new Toyota Prius, with an impressive 76 mpg over the course.

In the gasoline non-hybrid category, EcoModder had four competitors. Though Robert Smalls and Wonderboy did not take home prizes, they both got well over 200% of their EPA ratings. Robert drove his Subaru Legacy to a very impressive 47 mpg while Wonderboy made a record run of 65 mpg in his Civic EX.

I took home the 3rd place prize, with 83 mpg in my 91 Honda CRX, with my EcoModder co-founder Darin taking second place with a very impressive 106 mpg in his Pontiac Firefly (Geo Metro). The 1st prize went to Chang Ho Kim in his aeromodded 89 CRX, which shocked everyone with 118 mpg in his first fuel economy competition.

Also notable was event organizer Mike Kamm’s 77 mpg Datsun B210. He would’ve easily taken the top prize in the historic class but instead decided to compete in the gasoline class and came in 4th place by less than  one-tenth of a gallon of gasoline.

Definitely an event we will be attending again next year!

Related posts:

1. EcoModder Takes Home 3 Wins at the Green Grand Prix
2. Modified Honda CRX HF Scores 118 MPG in Fuel Economy Run
3. Pulse and Glide Your Prius for Super Fuel Economy

When the Scion debuted its iQ Concept at the New York International Auto Show, there was no solid word on when or if the car would be coming to the United States. The early word is that the car, which has already been successful in Japan and Europe, would come to North America in 2011 as a 2012 under the Scion brand, which would certainly give Scion some time to create larger customization options for the car to better fit their brand image.

Now the news is that the iQ could be coming to the U.S. even sooner. Given the recent success and expansion of SmartUSA, Toyota might have its sights set on the fortwo’s market niche with the iQ. Given Toyota’s superb brand-recognition and dealership network, it could easily give Smart a run for its money and reach even more potential buyers. Here’s hoping!

Related posts:

1. New York Auto Show: Scion Announces iQ Concept
2. Win a Free Scion iQ Beanie!
3. New York Auto Show: Mazda2 Officially Coming to Canada

If you haven’t noticed by now, truckers drive their rigs in a fundamentally different way from your average commuter. The main reason for this is the size and weight of their loads, which make it driving a truck more difficult, but a secondary benefit of driving like a trucker is better fuel economy.

How do you drive like a trucker?

There are three specific driving techniques that truckers use that I would like to highlight in this article:

1. Driving with load: Because truckers are often carrying heavy loads, they simply can’t make it up hills at the same speed as smaller vehicles. This is why you’ll often see truckers crawling up hilly interstate passes in the right lane. Then to make up time they pick that speed (and a little more) back up on the downhill.
2. Traffic light timing: Starting a truck from a dead stop is a difficult task, so when trucks are in stop and go traffic you’ll notice them crawling painfully slowly up to a stop. This helps them let traffic clear out in front of them so they can avoid actually stopping completely and begin accelerating again in a higher gear.
3. Follow the path of least resistance: As I’ve already emphasized, acceleration both positive and negative can be difficult with a truck. So, on the highways trucks tend to stick together in the right lane where they can cruise at a steady pace without much swerving around and jostling for position like many drivers are often do during their daily commutes.

How can you emulate these practices for better gas mileage?

With three techniques of your own, you can take a hint from our friends in the big rigs and get much better mileage:

1. Driving with load (DWL): Since you don’t drive a truck, you probably can get your car up a hill at or above the speed limit, but this doesn’t mean that you should. Typically in DWL you will allow your car to bleed speed uphill and then regain it downhill, within +/- 5 mph of your target average speed. Make sure that your bleeding and acceleration are smooth however, as it is advantageous to back off the throttle only a little going up hill so that you’re not quickly decelerating.

You can DWL with even bigger changes of speed, but this is not recommended in traffic or on single-lane roads since it can be quite a pain for other drivers. I personally limit DWL to deserted back roads and multi-lane interstates.

2. Traffic light timing: Traffic light timing can be difficult depending on the circumstances, but with a little time and attention it is one of the most useful driving techniques around. Next time you are on your commute or a commonly traveled road, try to pay attention to the lights. Do some of them have cross walk signs? How long do they stay red for? Are they timed or camera-triggered?

With this information you can learn how to time lights so that you never actually stop. You can anticipate red lights in a number of ways using available information. If a crosswalk signing is turning to stop or cross-traffic is lined up waiting, it is a good bet that the light may be turning red and you can begin a coast to the light.

Likewise, if a light has been red for quite a while and there is already traffic piling up at the light, you can slow down early and approach the light slowly, waiting for the light to change rather than arriving sooner and slamming on the brakes, which will avoid stopping altogether.

3. The path of least resistance: This tip is pretty much the same as how truckers do it. Stick to the right lanes unless you’re in a busy road like DC’s beltway, where ramps every several hundred meters mean constant slowing and speeding up to let other drivers on and off the road.

So there you have it! Now you can drive like a trucker and save some gas while you’re at it. I have never quantified the affects of these techniques in normal driving, but I can assure you they add up to much more than just a few percent MPG gain in my normal commute. Happy ecodriving!

Related posts:

1. 2009 VW Jetta TDi Fuel Economy Review: 41.1 MPG
2. Pulse and Glide Your Prius for Super Fuel Economy
3. Modified Honda CRX HF Scores 118 MPG in Fuel Economy Run

The Fit and Yaris have been dueling hatchbacks for years now, but it looks like they might soon become dueling hybrids. Rumors of both popular cars becoming hybrids have come and gone over the last few years, but it looks like it will stick this time for both of them. Especially now that sedans like the Civic and Corolla are much less popular at home in Japan than their hatchback counterparts.

Yaris rumors report that the vehicle could cost less than $16,000 in hybrid form and get up to 94 mpg in Japan’s urban driving cycle. As impressive as that sounds, it would probably only mean ~50mpg in the EPA test cycle. Nevertheless, you can anticipate the sales of vehicle carrying the Prius’s epic clout and a low price tag.

The Fit hybrid has been talked about for a lot longer, but it looks like that vehicle might come true as early as 2010. Less is known about the theoretical fuel economy of a Fit hybrid, but one would expect similar numbers to a Yaris hybrid unless Honda continues with it’s mild-hybrid IMA system into a new generation of hybrid vehicles.

Here’s hoping the rumor mill is more productive this time around!

Related posts:

1. Honda Sees Hybrids in the Future
2. IBM Says All Cars Will be Hybrids by 2020
3. Are Mild Hybrids Wasted Investment?

Got Pruis solar roof envy? Evidently quite a lot of people do these days. But that doesn’t mean that you, too, cannot have your very own solar roof. However, the ecomodders taking the initiative to add solar to their cars are not doing it for comfort in the summer, but for fuel economy.

How does a solar roof increase fuel economy?

Well, for the average ecomodder, removing gasoline-hungry alternator is a big dream. However, the usual method of doing this is to add a deep discharge battery and plug it in at home, a big hassle that still leaves your car with a somewhat limited range.

Solar alleviates this problem by allowing you to trickle charge your battery for extended alternator-less trips and less need to plug in to recharge.

So, how are they doing it?

The DIY solar roof solution is simpler than you might think. Just build your own custom solar array…on your roof! If that sounds too complicated, check out ecomodder member gascort’s step by step process, and you’ll see that with a little elbow grease and a lot of courage, you too can have a solar roof.

Definitely one of the cooler ways to turn your vehicle into a gasoline-sun hybrid!

Related posts:

1. The Solar Car that Could
2. News Flash: New Prius is Even Cooler
3. Honda Sees Hybrids in the Future

Ever wondered what the difference between the average driver struggling to beat the EPA in their Prius and the ecodrivers getting 80 mpg is? One of the keys is a technique called “Pulse & Glide.”

The specifics of pulse & glide on the Prius are covered in the above video, but to summarize, the technique has two parts:

• The pulse: This is a period of gentle to moderate acceleration. Even though you are using a fair amount of gas to gain speed, you’re not flooring it.
• The glide: During the glide you coast down from your top speed to your lower limit with the gasoline engine off, hoping to maximize the distance of your coast.

In the above video, the technique is practiced on rather empty roads from a speed of 20 mph to 37 mph, which nets about 80 mpg over the course in the Prius.

If you’re interested in more fuel saving tips, definitely check out EcoModder’s hypermiling tips list.

Related posts:

1. Ford Upgrades Trucks for “Super Fuel Economy”
2. 100+ Hypermiling / Fuel Economy Tips
3. Modified Honda CRX HF Scores 118 MPG in Fuel Economy Run

For the last couple days, GM has been trying to drum up a little press surrounding the number 230 for a surprise announcement. As you can see above, the “0″ in 230 is a plug, which makes sense considering the announcement was about the fuel economy capabilities of the upcoming Chevy Volt.

Nothing has changed about the Volt in recent history, but the big number comes from changes in the EPA’s plug-in electric vehicle rating system. The new system, which isn’t official yet, credits the Volt for what would be almost entirely electric-only use during normal city driving:

Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA’s methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

In a nutshell, semantics. The number relies on consumers consistently plugging their vehicle and getting a full charge each time. Also, this says nothing of the highway mileage for the vehicle, though it’s said the Volt will be weighted more for city driving than highway because of its plug-in capability. While this may generate a more impressive number, it doesn’t give much confidence in the vehicle for use in extended driving.

So, until the actual combined number comes from the EPA, we won’t really know what the Volt’s fuel economy is like, and even then, it will likely be very hard for any of us to make an accurate comparison with another vehicle.

Read the full press release after the break.

PRESS RELEASE:

Chevrolet Volt Expects 230 mpg in City Driving

* First mass-produced vehicle to claim more than 100 mpg composite fuel economy
* Tentative EPA methodology results show 25 kilowatt hours/100 miles electrical efficiency in city cycle
* Plugging in daily is key to high-mileage performance

WARREN, Mich. – The Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle is expected to achieve city fuel economy of at least 230 miles per gallon, based on development testing using a draft EPA federal fuel economy methodology for labeling for plug-in electric vehicles.

The Volt, which is scheduled to start production in late 2010 as a 2011 model, is expected to travel up to 40 miles on electricity from a single battery charge and be able to extend its overall range to more than 300 miles with its flex fuel-powered engine-generator.

“From the data we’ve seen, many Chevy Volt drivers may be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use any gas,” said GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson. “EPA labels are a yardstick for customers to compare the fuel efficiency of vehicles. So, a vehicle like the Volt that achieves a composite triple-digit fuel economy is a game-changer.”

According to U.S. Department of Transportation data, nearly eight of 10 Americans commute fewer than 40 miles a day http://tinyurl.com/U-S-DOTStudy .

“The key to high-mileage performance is for a Volt driver to plug into the electric grid at least once each day,” Henderson said.

Volt drivers’ actual gas-free mileage will vary depending on how far they travel and other factors, such as how much cargo or how many passengers they carry and how much the air conditioner or other accessories are used. Based on the results of unofficial development testing of pre-production prototypes, the Volt has achieved 40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving in both EPA city and highway test cycles.

Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA’s methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.

The Chevrolet Volt uses grid electricity as its primary source of energy to propel the car. There are two modes of operation: Electric and Extended-Range. In electric mode, the Volt will not use gasoline or produce tailpipe emissions when driving. During this primary mode of operation, the Volt is powered by electrical energy stored in its 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.

When the battery reaches a minimum state of charge, the Volt automatically switches to Extended-Range mode. In this secondary mode of operation, an engine-generator produces electricity to power the vehicle. The energy stored in the battery supplements the engine-generator when additional power is needed during heavy accelerations or on steep inclines.

“The 230 city mpg number is a great indication of the capabilities of the Volt’s electric propulsion system and its ability to displace gasoline,” said Frank Weber, global vehicle line executive for the Volt. “Actual testing with production vehicles will occur next year closer to vehicle launch. However, we are very encouraged by this development, and we also think that it is important to continue to share our findings in real time, as we have with other aspects of the Volt’s development.”

About Chevrolet
Chevrolet is one of America ’s best-known and best-selling automotive brands, and one of the fastest growing brands in the world. With fuel solutions that go from “gas-friendly to gas-free,” Chevy has nine models that get 30 miles per gallon or more on the highway, and offers three hybrid models. More than 2.5 million Chevrolets that run on E85 biofuel have been sold. Chevy delivers expressive design, spirited performance and provides the best value in every segment in which it competes. More information on Chevrolet can be found at www.chevrolet.com. For more information on the Volt, visit http://media.gm.com/volt/.

General Motors Company, one of the world’s largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com.

Related posts:

1. The Chevy Volt will have Goodyear Fuel Max Tires
2. Toyota Claims Bigger Engine are Better for Fuel Economy
3. Mobil Claims New Motor Oil Can Save You Over $400

It’s certainly a mixed bag of news for many of us, but the government’s “cash for clunks” rebate program has gotten an infusion of new cash and will be up and running through at least the end of the month.

As we recently posted, the program ran out of its first billion after its first week in operation. So, despite all the recent hub-bub around government spending and meddling with the auto industry, they’ve still managed to rush another huge junk of government money out to the aide of an ailing auto industry.

The rush to spend more money on the program, however, didn’t have anything to do with evaluating how successful it has been, either in terms  of environmental impact or stimulating sales. However, early evidence suggests that the dealerships and auto manufacturers are going to be the big beneficiaries in all this.

So, if you were planning on buying a new car and through you might be out of luck, fear not, there will be funds available for at least another few weeks.

Related posts:

1. Cash for Clunkers Says Goodbye Tonight
2. 5 Cash for Clunkers Values on which to Spend your $4,500
3. Canada Kills ecoAUTO Program, Rebates to End for Fuel Efficient Vehicles

For those of us eagerly waiting for the official start of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X-Prize competition, this is definitely a step in the right direction. The contestants are assembled, the rules are laid out, and finally, the judges have been assembled.

The judging will be done by six automotive experts, assembled from such disparate backgrounds as racing to renewable and battery technology, which should leave the X-Prize Foundation well equipped to deal with the wide range of vehicles and contestants competing for the big, $10 million prize.

Read the full press release after the jump.

Automotive Experts Will Lead Judging Process in Multimillion Dollar Competition for Super Fuel Efficient Vehicles

PLAYA VISTA, Calif., Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE, a multimillion dollar competition to inspire a new generation of viable, super fuel-efficient vehicles, today announced the hire of six new team members who will lead technical operations for the competition. All six new hires will serve on the technical inspection and design judging team and will report to Bob Larsen, Senior Advisor, Technical Operations for the Prize.

Under the direction of Larsen, who has spent his career in advanced propulsion systems, fuels, and vehicle competition operations and currently serves as Argonne National Laboratory’s Director Emeritus of the Center for Transportation Research, the group of new hires includes a mix of well respected and established names from the automotive and engineering industries. They include:

• Steve Wesoloski – Senior Advisor, Deputy Technical Operations (Expertise in engineering and motorsports; most recently with GM Racing)
• Don Taylor – Senior Advisor, Competition Rules (Expertise in ‘Green Racing’; formerly of the National Hot Rod Association)
• P.T. Jones – Senior Advisor, Competition Operations (Senior Vehicle Systems Engineer, currently with Sentech, Inc.)
• Jody Nelson – Senior Advisor, Energy Storage Technologies (Expertise in alternative and renewable energy technologies; formerly with Daimler AG and currently with BluEngineering)
• Spencer Quong – Senior Advisor, Fueling & Advanced Vehicle Technologies (currently Chief Technology Officer with Quong & Associates, Inc.)
• Dr. Jim Winkelman – Senior Advisor, Electronics & Advanced Propulsion Technologies (Electrical Engineer with 30+ years in developing advanced products at General Electric, Ford, Visteon and Plug Power)

Automotive expert Aaron Fyke, who currently serves as Director of Energy Prize Development for the X PRIZE Foundation, will also be contributing to the design judging effort. His extensive experience in automotive, alternative energy and manufacturing will be essential to evaluating the technical and business merit and commercial viability of Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE entrants.

“Adding this terrific pool of talent to the competition creates a robust and highly qualified judging panel for the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE,” said Eric Cahill, Senior Director of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE.

The technical team is currently hard at work reviewing the 90+ Registered Teams’ business plans and vehicle data submissions. The Design Judging phase, as it is formally called, is the first competitive event in the competition. Teams must pass this critical phase in order to continue on as Qualified Teams that will compete in a rigorous and demanding series of vehicle challenges that begin with formal opening ceremonies next spring.

“The priority during this phase is to ensure that all teams understand the criteria, that entered vehicles meet or exceed the criteria, and that teams appear capable of building a production intent vehicle to these standards in time for formal vehicle challenges next spring,” noted Steve Wesoloski, newly appointed Senior Advisor, Deputy Technical Operations for the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE.

The newly assembled team of automotive experts will work closely with each competing team to review their vehicle for safety and ensure its readiness for on-road competition events in the coming months. For complete bios on each of the technical team members, please visit www.progressiveautoxprize.org/files/downloads/auto/PIAXP_Technical_Team.pdf.

Related posts:

1. “110 MPG” HP2G Mustang Kicked Out of Progressive Automotive X-Prize Competition
2. Progressive Automotive X-Prize Knockout Round
3. 2,757.1 MPG at Shell Eco-Marathon Americas