Automotive Darwin Award Nominee

I don't think this guy died, but I do think we need an automotive version of the famous Darwin Awards--people who do the stupidest things, and wind up wrecking their cars.


New Jeep Isnt Trail Rated - Watch more free videos

The Fuel Economy Trade-Off Game

Technology/Technique	Cost	Safety	Convenience	Durability	Fuel Save	Total	Comments
Reduce Mass: downsize	+1	-2	-2	0	+1	-2	Americans like big roomy cars. Safety suffers due to interface with older cars.
Reduce Mass: materials	-1	-1	0	0	+1	-1	Al, Mg, carbon fiber cost more.
Reduce Engine Output	+1	0	-2	0	+1	0	Americans like powerful cars.
Mild Hybrid Powertrain	-1	0	0	-1	+1	-1	More complexity (batteries, generator) hurts durability.
Full Hybrid Powertrain	-2	0	-1	-1	+2	-2	Even more complexity.
Gas Turbo Direct Injection	-1	0	0	-1	+1	-1	More complexity.
Flex Fuel (Ethanol)	0	0	-1	0	+1*	0 (-1)	Fuel availability problems; less gas used, but nearly same carbon output.
Passenger Car Diesel	-1	0	0	-1	+2	0	More complexity due to emissions regs.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells	-1	0	0	+1	+3	+3	Still a research project.

How do you compare the different ways to increase fuel economy? If you are an engineer, you might make a table which assigns weights to different characteristics and then levels for each one. Combine the numbers, and you have a handy way to compare different choices.

Here is a swag at the fuel economy trade off game, according to my near-expert opinion. The method is to equally weight Cost, Safety, Convenience, Durability, and Fuel Economy. -2 means big decline (more cost, less safety, less convenience, less durability), while a +2 means a big improvement (less cost, more safety, more convenience, etc.). Minus bad, plus good.

So, the way I see it, for a modest fuel savings, the best all around technique is to reduce power, followed by gas turbo direct injection. For large fuel savings, the light diesel seems best. The Holy Grail, as always, is the hydrogen fuel cell.

What is inevitable is that you can't have everything--this is a law of engineering, where physics and economics meet. Want lots of power? Lose weight (and safety). Want safety and fuel economy? Gain cost.

We Americans need to have a serious discussion about what it is we really want, and we need to tell our legislators. What are we willing to give up?

OK, Edmunds just posted a great article which assigns grades to the various fuel saving technologies. You may not believe me, but in fact I was working on the same type of post. I was trying to figure out how to make the table work right.

Monster Camper Van

The other day, this monster van showed up in one of the parking lots not far from my house. I couldn't help but notice it, and quietly snapped a couple of pictures.



A quick trip to Google, and I learn all about it. The builder is an outfit called Sportsmobile, which starts the process with a Ford or Chevy van or Dodge (Mercedes) Sprinter. Various interior amenities are added, such as a head, beds, mini-kitchen, swiveling chairs, and cabinets. A pop-up camper roof can also be added.

The example in my neighborhood is a top of the line specimen, as it has been given a Quigley 4x4 conversion in addition to the camper treatment. This van would cost approximately $70,000!

A nice trailer or 5th wheel camper plus a 4x4 truck to tow it seems like a better deal, to me, since you can use the truck for many non-camping activities, and you would have a much larger living space as well. Even if it doesn't make the most sense to me, these monster vans are an impressive product.

Comparing Cars--SpD

Recently, MotorTrend tested a bunch of high performance cars, and presented the results as spiderwebs, with a combined performance number based on things like steering accuracy, brake feel, roadholding, etc. The result was neat, but not practically useful because it didn't factor in cost.

Then Winding Road got in the game, and proposed the Speed/Dollar index, which is HP/weight/price * fudge factor.

A problem with the SpD metric is that it only cares about power/weight ratio, which can favor cheap cars with big engines, such as the Mustang GT, or even a V8 Chevy family hauler. Nice in a straight line, but what if you are interested in autocross or rallying?

I think a better metric would be something like (HP/Weight + Slalom Speed/60)/Price * K, which would add a dynamic handling component--the speed through a slalom course, in this example. Or perhaps a lap time or average speed around a reference track would be better.

Both Winding Road and Motor Trend put the MazdaSpeed 3 near the top of their list, in terms of bang-for-the buck. Now I want one.

Top Sellers MPG

If the price of gas is such a problem, why don't Americans buy smaller cars? (Answer: because they don't want small cars.)

Here is the list of the 2006 top sellers, by volume, for the U.S. (list courtesy of Edmunds). I have added the average fuel economy numbers from the EPA's 2007 fuel economy list.

1. Ford F-Series (includes F-150, F-250 Super Duty and F-350 Super Duty) — 796,039
Fullsize and just plain huge trucks.
Ave. fuel economy: 17mpg (V8 combined City and Highway numbers)

2. Chevrolet Silverado (includes 1500, 1500 Classic, 1500 SS Classic, 1500HD Classic, 2500HD, 2500HD Classic, 3500HD, 3500 Classic — 636,069
Fullsize trucks.
Ave. fuel economy: 17mpg (V8)

3. Toyota Camry and Camry Solara — 448,445
Midsized car.
Ave. fuel economy: 29mpg (I4)

4. Dodge Ram (includes 1500, 2500 and 3500) — 364,177
Fullsized Trucks.
Ave. fuel economy: 17mpg (V8)

5. Honda Accord — 354,441
Midsized Car.
Ave. fuel economy: 29mpg (I4)

6. Honda Civic — 316,638
Compact Car.
Ave. fuel economy: 35mpg

7. Chevrolet Impala — 289,868
Large Car.
Ave. fuel economy: 26mpg

8. Toyota Corolla — 272,327
Compact Car.
Ave. fuel economy: 35mpg

9. Nissan Altima — 232,457
Midsize Car.
Ave fuel economy: 30mpg (I4)

10. Chevrolet Cobalt — 211,449
Compact Car.
Ave fuel economy: 28mpg

What I see in these numbers is that the love affair for large vehicles continues, despite fuel costs. Where is the landslide towards small thrifty cars? It isn't here yet.

Of the top ten best sellers, approximately 2,160,000 units (F150, Silverado, Ram, Impala) get worse than 28mpg (CAFE target is 27.5 for cars). 1,835,100 units (Camry, Accord, Civic, Corolla, Altima, Cobalt) get better than 28mpg.

A Response To A Comment

One of my few readers left a comment in my recent post about Bob Lutz' opinion on the cost of raising CAFE standards. His comment was so whacky I thought I'd respond to it point by point. My reply in italics.

Anonymous said...

As an engineer myself, I'm quite dubious of your claims. Working in the auto industry as an engineer doesn't necessarily qualify you as a subject matter expert on mileage or CAFE standards or future locomotive technologies or for that matter, of thermodynamics.

Hey, it's my blog, and my opinion. If you think I'm an idiot, start your own blog! Being close to the problems, I think I do have something to say about fuel economy.

Throttling the Big Three on efficiency will drive innovation. Unfortunately, likely not from the Big Three. Unfortunately, your industry is one of the most lackluster at innovation. That includes your foreign competitors. GM has spent over $100 billion in research over the last quarter decade and for that we get .... what? A Chevy Aveo with lower MPG ratings than a Chevette of 1984. Look it up on the government CAFE web site. $100 billion sent a man to the moon and created entire new industries and technologies with the Apollo program. Yes, inflation makes it apples to oranges but....

Lackluster? What? Check out all the stuff we have that we didn't in 1984. Airbags. ESC. Seatbelt pretensioners. Rollover sensors. Computer simulated crashes. Self diagnostics of all types. Much of this was not driven by regulation, but by market competition. Do you have any idea how many microprocessors are used in your average car? How many thousands of lines of software code?

As for your Chevette, that is not a valid comparison. How much did that Chevette weigh in 1984? How much horsepower did it have? What was the 0-60mph time? Did the Chevette have power steering, power brakes, side impact beams, front and side airbags, etc., all of which add weight? The lowly Aveo is much more car than a Chevette, in every way.

Innovation will happen in transportation because its now out of your hands. It's in the hands of the world's scientists and entrepreneurs. You may incorporate the technology or with new advances in manufacturing, you may actually see small volume niche players eating your lunch as the landscape of innovation could easily create.

I'm not sure what you just said. Many of the world's scientists are working for automotive OEM's and suppliers.

By the way, CAFE standards in Japan and Europe are 2x what they are in the US and China is following suit. Better quit whining and start getting ingenious. Seems like they can sell cars in all three markets for substantially less than the average selling price in the US. Your $5000 claim is meritless. He was talking about America's stringent diesel emissions. Innovation will make that a nonstarter as well just as when Honda embarrassed the Big Three in the 1970s when they said they couldn't meet the emission standards and Honda ended up doing it without a catalytic converter.

Where did you get the idea that cars are cheaper in Europe and Japan than in the U.S.? Again, compare apples to apples. The average car in Europe or Japan is a "B" class car--about the size of a Civic or Corolla. That's the family sedan. Very few people can afford a "C" or "D" size car (Accord and larger). Many people drive "A" cars, such as the Smart. Full sized pickup trucks virtually don't exist--here they are the biggest selling vehicles (Silverado, F150).

Why is my $5000 claim meritless? You didn't give any example s of what things cost.

Sorry buddy. You need to go back to engineering school. Hey, if you are going to blog, be factual, be honest and expect negative feedback when you are wrong.

Sorry buddy, you need to learn how to argue. If you are going to comment on a blog, and call the blogger out, you had better bring some facts.

Ford Selling Volvo? Why?

According to a news wire story from Reuters, which picked it up from a Swedish newspaper, which got the news from an un-named Ford source, Ford is considering selling Volvo, and BMW is kicking the tires.

Uh, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Ford doesn't report the Volvo financials separately, but the industry guess is that Volvo is probably the most profitable of the Euro-luxury brands. Volvo is also a leader in automotive safety technology, with a valuable portfolio of intellectual property. They are also a leader in environmentally friendly carmaking, another priority for Ford.

Would Ford really keep money-pit Jaguar and sell Volvo? And why would BMW want Volvo, after their sour experience with Land Rover? I am not sure I see how Volvo fits into BMW's portfolio--BMW's cars are sportier, and every bit as safe. They overlap considerably in price.

According to the news article, Ford could gain as much as $9 Billion on a sale of Volvo. That's a nice chunk of change, but then what? Ford would be left with a real hole in their product line-up, with no credible competitor to European luxury brands, with Jaguar being weak and too far upscale and Lincoln not yet a credible threat.

Man, those college professors and Vermont commies are gonna be pissed--BMW isn't what most of them would call a progressive company.