What things can you think of that the auto industry could do to help vehicles use less fuel?

I was thinking this morning about how older trucks had a simple 5X4 transmission. Basically this was a 5-speed main box and a 4-speed auxilary transmission. Todays trucks now have double overdrive transmissions along with two-speed differentials. Why couldn't the auto industry incorporate things like double overdrive and maybe two speed differentials in pickups and suv's? My rig turns 2000 RPM @70mph and 1500 RPM @55mph. I would get better mileage if @70mph my engine would only turn 1500 RPM. And just think if your rig had the new advanced fuel management system on top of that (the system that cuts back from 8-cylinders to 4-cylinders at cruising speeds). You could potentially have a V-8 SUV getting 30mpg or better. I know the cost of these things will drive up the vehicle cost but these days that offset for ROI makes them plossible. What are some other things you can think of?

How about a sail on top, for when your going in the direction of the wind. Or a big magnet in front, so when you get behind a truck, you can just coast along. Then there's the Flintstone example, a hole in the floor so you can help push from inside.

Wow, that was helpful!

What is most frustrating to me is that Detroit is still hellbent on fighting Congress and the desires of their consumers every step of the way, telling us that they know what we want.

Judging by the dismal performance of the Big Three and how well foreign automakers like Toyota are doing, maybe they DON'T know what the marketplace is demanding. Continuing to put out SUVs that get 15 miles per gallon when gas prices are nearing $4 a gallon and telling us that we WANT those is irresponsible at best ... and just plain ignorant.

!!!

IMHO a focus on smaller cars would help pretty huge. We've got extremely powerful computers able to make the most of materials. Smaller cars consume less.

That's a big part of why my older '89 toyota outperforms a brand new model. Both are similar performance wise, but the newer one has a lot of extra weight.

So that's one thing.

Another would be to add economy features to cars. Given the growing pinch of gas prices, I believe people would use them.

Such features could be:

-several engine operating profiles for varied terrain and passenger load conditions. Think of it like the sonic profiles on stereos.

The optimal engine timing and fuel air ratios for one person freeway driving are far different than for multiple people riding in the car for city driving, for example.

Maybe just three choices tops.

This could nearly double fuel economy for specific cases, why not leverage that? That would actually be a great reason to put computers in cars. (which I largely hate)

I've toyed with these things in my car and the biggest problem is not having settings that can just handle driving in general, leaving me with a best case setting that's good, but it could be really good!


-research into viable fuel additives.

Instead of snake oil, why not just do the work on this and provide it as an option for people? So, you have a smaller tank that can hold additives. When you go to fill up, the current tank level is read, and the additive is delivered right before you add your gas to fill the tank.

People can bulk buy, save money, containers, etc...

I LOVE your differential idea. The Dodge Colt had this on some models. Frankly, it just rocked! Easy to use and those Colts, equipped with that, are capable of some seriously good MPG.

Had a Chevette once that had a differential change. It was a completely different car, and I loved driving it. Would regularly get 40MPG with the non-factory differential and it was a 4 speed too. Had it been a 5, MPG would have been higher.

Most cars have enough performance in them to make the greater selection of gear ratios totally sensible.

-engine pre-heaters

Cars consume lots of fuel in the winter months at start up. Maybe add an option to heat key engine components before morning start up. Could get rid of the warm up stage, and cold driving stages.

-duty cycle variance on fuel injection.

This is a variation on the switch to 4 cylinder bit you mentioned and could be one of the driving profile settings. Say you've a V4, and are doing the low load cruise bit. So just run on three, with the missing cylinder being different and sequential on every cycle.

Instead of cutting them off, phase them out such that the transition is not abrupt. Bet most drivers would not even notice. Again, good reason for computers to be in cars.

(If I had time and dollars, I would build that into my car, along with the variable profiles. I know I can get 50MPG plus, if I had those things)

-Fuel consumption indicator on dashboard.

Why don't more cars have this?

I got to drive a BMW for a week or so, and it had a simple economy indicator. Was a no brainer to adjust driving style using that thing.

-improve low RPM, torque performance specs. Low RPM driving is a serious economy move. Should make the best of it. This coupled with the other things could deliver a lot of MPG for a lot of drivers with little hassle.

My car has a fuel consumption indicator on the dash, actually its part of the radio.

They'e been around a long time.
My '85 Subaru had one.

This may be a little tiny bit off topic, (but maybe not).

One of the most exciting cars on the horizon now is the Chevy Volt.

It won't be available fo a while yet, but when they are there's bound to be a waiting list for them.

I think that GM could generate a lot of quick sales if they offered a car like the Malabu now with the offer of a preferential spot on the waiting list when the Volt becomes available.

The fuel consumption indicator has been around a LONG time.

I inherited an old 1977 Buick from my grandfather ... and this thing had the indicator on the instrument panel, right next to the fuel gauge.

Oh and even with the thing being a tank, and with a 350 .. it still got about 20 mpg in town and near 30 cruising down the freeway.

It CAN be done!

Now that I think about it, my brother's '63 Falcon had an aftermarket vacuuum guage that told you just how much the car sucked (air & gas).

Re introduce the Geo... Funny how they took it out of production just before the gas prices started to rise....The last model geo got better highway milelage than ANYTHING now in production.... While I never got an answer from GM or Suzuki, I suspect it didn't meet some current standard. As for reducing use, increase rail traffic for products decrease truck traffic, relax some MANDATORY epa requirements that are not cost beneficial....

relax some MANDATORY epa requirements that are not cost beneficial....

I agree. Also need to do away with some of the pollution equipment requirements. That's what's killing the MPG.

I had a 1977 full size Dodge van (the WORST vehicle I've ever owned BTW) that had a 318 and a 4 speed manual tranny.

It got 13 mpg on the hwy. I had a mechanic friend of mine re adjust the carb (had to break off the little tabs that stopped the adjustments from being turned more than 1/2 a turn), he also plugged some of the vacuum hoses and took off some of the other crap.

I had a muffler shop take the catalytic convertor off (this was back when you could get away with that!) and put a straight pipe on it.

Now my van got 22 mpg on the highway!

My questions is this; did it almost double the output of pollutants since it almost doubled the mileage without the anti pollution crap?

No way to know for sure since there was no DEQ testing back then, but I highly doubt it.

I also think the oil companies are in cahoots with the auto manufactures on the mileage thing! No way to prove it, but I'll bet they are.

I think there should be a big prize, say a million dollars each for the engineering team that can develop a car that gets 100+ mpg and a five year tax break for the company that produces/markets the car.

With all the brain power in the auto industry, you really will not convince me that it can't be done!

Bill- this is not 1977. Nowadays, efficiency and low emissions go hand-in-hand.

As for increasing efficiency with more flexible gear ratios, I think a CVT(constantly variable transmission) would be the way to go, although they are still fairly expensive the prices seem to be coming down. They are used in the current Prius and some other models - Subaru put one in a Justy a while back. I drove a Ford 500 with a CVT once and it was very interesting - the engine would pick an RPM and just sit there as the transmission changed ratios continuously to accellerate the car. Depending on how much I pushed the gas pedal, the RPM would sit at what I guessed was either the efficiency/torque peak or, if I floored it, the horsepower peak.

The best thing Detroit could do to improve efficiency would be to BUILD SOME DIESELS.

As for relaxing regulations, I'm all for that. There are plenty of much more efficient vehicles available worldwide (some carrying domestic nameplates such as FORD) that are not available in the US due to protectionist regulations masquerading as safety and emissions regulations.

"Nowadays, efficiency and low emissions go hand-in-hand."

Tell Detroit that. The Big Three don't seem to believe you, sadly.

Speaking of the Big Three ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080313/bs_nm/chrysler_shutdown_dc

"Nowadays, efficiency and low emissions go hand-in-hand.

Tell Detroit that. The Big Three don't seem to believe you, sadly."

Perhaps the problem here is another variable...cost. My guess is that better use of the fuel *should* result in fewer emissions, but added sensors, more sophisticated engine computers will no doubt, add cost. Different profiles (such as suggested by Missing_kskd, above) could occur automatically if enough parameters were sampled and fed to the engines' computer.

The old Volvo P-1800 had a two speed differential.

The reason they don't have more complex transmission systems in consumer trucks and SUV's is cost. Not just the cost of the hardware, but the R&D costs of re-engineering the entire drive train. Modern transmissions are quite efficient without them.

Also, there isn't always enough torque at low revs to avoid a lot of gear shifting every time you'd want to accelerate. Again, the engine power/torque curve in modern V-6's just aren't set up for this. Some of them have pretty consistent torque above 2000 rpm but develop their power only at the higher revs.

Historically, overdrive became more sparse when the Japanese started putting a fifth gear in the old Toyotas and Datsuns. Those of you who had one might remember that the 5th gear ratios were like an overdrive. Low revs on the highway, but absolutely no acceleration without dropping at least to 4th.

I'll bet the existing computers would serve nicely to provide a couple sets of engine parameters. They've done the sampling required already. Had to to vet the factor settings.

It's a one size fits all deal though. Bet the existing sensors and such would all play just fine, with the profile option too. Look at the aftermarket performance chips. They do that, so there is no reason the auto maker couldn't do that as well.


All that's needed is a user interface and that could be a simple switch.

Currently as a car gets older, the cost to register it gets less, if it cost more to register an older car, people would get rid of them sooner, cutting down on pollution and low millage cars.

Jesus. Make him stop.

LOL!!!

BUILD SOME DIESELS. Talk about pollution issues!!! Bad idea seen the cost of diesel lately? Yet Diesel is cheaper to refine than gasoline. so talk about gouging.....diesel buyers are really getting the screws compared to gasoline users.......

we can all go back to horse an buggies... works for the amish, of course they don't have 30 mile commutes.....

Amus drives a horse and buggy???

Something is Amiss!
He said Amish, not Amus!

But as the owner of 2 MG's, I might be better of with a horse & buggy.

LOL, My bad.

MG's are cool. Sure don't see many of them anymore!

Especially in the Northwest. Something about wet weather and English ignitions made by Lucas.

Blame Lucas!
That's why mine haven't been out for a while.

Even if you haven't personally experienced the quirky Lucas electrical system, this is funny:

Lucas the Prince of Darkness

* The Lucas motto: "Get home before dark."
* Lucas is the patent holder for the short circuit.
* Lucas - Inventor of the first intermittent wiper.
* Lucas - Inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.
* The three position Lucas switch - Dim, Flicker and Off.
* The Original Anti-Theft Device - Lucas Electrics.
* Lucas is an acronym for Loose Unsoldered Connections and Splices
* Lucas systems actually uses AC current; it just has a random frequency.
* "I have had a Lucas pacemaker for years and have never had any trou..."
* If Lucas made guns, wars would not start.
* Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Because Lucas makes their refrigerators


More here.

Might be a way to save gas...mandate that all cars driven in America be equipped with Lucas electrical parts... possibly could reduce driving by 20-50% or so.

A few comments . . .

Caddy's infamous 8-6-4 V8 engine set back development of the variable firing cylinder engine. GM lost so much money in the warranty work. Real world driving issues are a bit much for this complicated system.

Manual trannies (and shifting differentals) are on the way out. Many newer engines meet air pollution standards only during specific RPM ranges so computers control the transmission to stay in that range. This is especially true for powerful engines.

Geo dropped out of the High MPG Club when they dropped the 3 cylinder engine in the mid 90's. (Air pollution standards)

Diesel fuel USED to be cheaper to refine, but not anymore -- since last year the amount of sulfur had to be significantly reduced requiring more sophisicated refining. Because of this and fewer refineries able to meet the new fuel standards is why the cost of diesel is higher than gasoline.

...when they dropped the 3 cylinder engine in the mid 90's. (Air pollution standards)

...able to meet the new fuel standards is why the cost of diesel is higher than gasoline.

notice the trend is due to gov'mint regs, not technical innovations. Yet they want it both ways. The feds talk about MANDATING increased MPG, yet constanly tweak the air standards forcing the makers to comply with pollution issues at the expense of higher mileage. I don't think you can have it both ways, nor is "alternative fuels" a cost effective option.

"BUILD SOME DIESELS. Talk about pollution issues!!! Bad idea seen the cost of diesel lately?"

Roger- Your information about diesels seems to be pretty dated. With modern fuel formulation and emissions technology, diesels even meet California emissions. They have better performance (not in HP numbers but in useable power, aka torque), and on a dollar-per-mile basis are still better than gas. Gas is $3.40/gal - 3.40/30(MPG)= 11.3 cents/mile. Diesel at $4/gal - 4.00/45(MPG) = 8.9 cents/mile.

If you care about carbon emissions (which the EPA doesn't), diesel also comes out on top.

Now if they can do somthing about the smell... it makes me sick really

Yes Roger...I got my first intense exposure to diesel while on a fishing boat off Ilwaco, while I was puking over the side from seasickness. To this day I associate diesel fumes with seasickness.

I can't stand the smell of diesel either.

I'll do my best to get around any diesel truck I'm following.

Funny thing though, I like the smell of Jet A or JP-4 when I'm around the airport and it's basically the same thing, just a few more additives.

Maybe it's because I'm an airplane nut?!

"just a few more additives."

They call it "Airport" scent additive.

It also comes in Bus, Dump Truck, Old Ford and "Bunker Oil Blue" scent.

"Now if they can do somthing about the smell... "

Done and done.

When I was in Europe a few years ago I literally put my nose to the tailpipe of the idling diesel rental car we had and I couldn't tell it was diesel. The new post-ULSD cars over here should be the same.

And I hate to break it to you, but gas cars sometimes stink too, you're just used to it. Everytime I am driving up the Sylvan hill behind a gasser with a cold (or inoperative) catalyst, I can tell from the stink.

I have to agree about the powerful association that smells have with experiences though, and mine seem to be opposite some of yours re: diesel - it's associated with positive childhood memories for me.

They don't use jp -4 anymore they use JP-5, there's inflation everywhere.

.... but gas cars sometimes stink too, you're just used to it. Everytime I am driving up the Sylvan hill behind a gasser with a cold (or inoperative) catalyst, I can tell from the stink.

You bet they do!! I remember when they first started putting catalytic converters on cars. They smelled like horse farts!

Totally agreed on the smell.

They all smell. It's all about which smell you like best.

IMHO, they all can be made to smell not so much as to be a significant bother. Really, everybody makes the same value judgment here. Walk, ride, or drive.

If you drive, then the smell is worth the ride.

I was behind a small diesel bus the other day that had a "Bio-Diesel" sticker on the bumper. The exhaust smelled like Mac D French fries! It made me hungry, so I had to stop and get some fast food on the way home...ARRRRGH!