X-Prize winners... 102 mpg

[TangoWhiskey]

The automotive X-Prize of $5M has been claimed... 102MPG. See link below for pictures of the vehicle, and of the runner-ups. (The 2-passenger tandem Cabin Motorcycle with 187 MPGe on page 4 is very cool).

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11128_3-10004871.html

 

[DC34ME]

I'll take one in blue please...

 

[sba55]

102 mpg isn't nearly as great as it sounds. There's production diesel cars that are quite nice and get 78mpg. My disappointment with all these efforts is that while it's good to reduce consumption, the focus right now should be on improving the consumption of vehicles at the very high end (<20mpg), rather than the low end. The high end consumption cars use up most of the fuel, not those cars in the 30mpg range. This is the problem with using MPG rather than g/100miles. MPG makes it seem like it's just as good for consumption to go from 50mpg to 102mpg as it is to go from 15 to 30 mpg - sadly, that's NOT the case at all.

As an example - we're driving 200 miles:

The ~100mpg car uses 2 gallons of fuel
A 50mpg Diesel car uses 4
A midsize 30mpg Ford uses 6.5 gallons
A 1980 15mpg Chevy Pickup uses 13 gallons

That's a 2 gallons savings to go from a very realistic mpg for a good diesel engine for a full size car (50) to very expensive technology. And it's a 6.5 gallons - 3 times as much! - savings to go from the pickup to the Ford. I think it's clear what we should focus on if we want to reduce consumption.

-Felix

 

[Steve Foley]

the focus right now should be on improving the consumption of vehicles at the very high end (<20mpg), rather than the low end.

The question is how many 1980 Ford pickups are still on the road burning 15mpg.

I just put my 1987 Jeep back on the road, with a brand new carburetor. I could throw many thousands of dollars at it in order to get the MPG up from 15-20 to 20-25. The fuel injection kit for it is $1700, but that doesn't do much for economy, only reliability. Even so, my Jeep is driven very few miles, so there's no way I can cost justify investing to improve gas mileage.

The place where the improvements need to be made are in the 30mpg Fords that are being driven billions of miles per year.

The goal is to get some of the technology in the high end vehicles down into the mass produced vehicles.

 

[tonycondon]

yep the next X prize should be for something that can pull my glider trailer at 70 mph and get 40 mpg.

 

[RMCN172RG]

102 mpg isn't nearly as great as it sounds.

For a little better perspective in about 1962 GM had a contest among teams at the Tech Center to modify a production Car for maximum mileage run on the Center test track with a required average speed, etc.

My Dad's team won with 98 MPG in a slightly modified 1959 VW bug.

I still have the cute little trophy he was awarded.

I don't remeber all the modifications but some included lighter tread and over inflated tires, increased spring tension in the brakes so they did not drag, run in nuetral as much as possible, idle RPM as low as possible and run it lean.

 

[SkyHog]

102 mpg isn't nearly as great as it sounds. There's production diesel cars that are quite nice and get 78mpg. My disappointment with all these efforts is that while it's good to reduce consumption, the focus right now should be on improving the consumption of vehicles at the very high end (<20mpg), rather than the low end. The high end consumption cars use up most of the fuel, not those cars in the 30mpg range. This is the problem with using MPG rather than g/100miles. MPG makes it seem like it's just as good for consumption to go from 50mpg to 102mpg as it is to go from 15 to 30 mpg - sadly, that's NOT the case at all.

As an example - we're driving 200 miles:

The ~100mpg car uses 2 gallons of fuel
A 50mpg Diesel car uses 4
A midsize 30mpg Ford uses 6.5 gallons
A 1980 15mpg Chevy Pickup uses 13 gallons

That's a 2 gallons savings to go from a very realistic mpg for a good diesel engine for a full size car (50) to very expensive technology. And it's a 6.5 gallons - 3 times as much! - savings to go from the pickup to the Ford. I think it's clear what we should focus on if we want to reduce consumption.

-Felix

You're expressing the exact same numbers in a different way.

What difference does it make if its MPG or gp100m?

 

[EdFred]

You're expressing the exact same numbers in a different way.

What difference does it make if its MPG or gp100m?

It's easier for dumb people to see the amount saved when reading it in g/100m than in mpg. I imagine that's why they show it that way in Canada and Europe.

 

[rottydaddy]

102 mpg isn't nearly as great as it sounds. There's production diesel cars that are quite nice and get 78mpg. My disappointment with all these efforts is that while it's good to reduce consumption, the focus right now should be on improving the consumption of vehicles at the very high end (<20mpg), rather than the low end. The high end consumption cars use up most of the fuel, not those cars in the 30mpg range. This is the problem with using MPG rather than g/100miles. MPG makes it seem like it's just as good for consumption to go from 50mpg to 102mpg as it is to go from 15 to 30 mpg - sadly, that's NOT the case at all.

As an example - we're driving 200 miles:

The ~100mpg car uses 2 gallons of fuel
A 50mpg Diesel car uses 4
A midsize 30mpg Ford uses 6.5 gallons
A 1980 15mpg Chevy Pickup uses 13 gallons

That's a 2 gallons savings to go from a very realistic mpg for a good diesel engine for a full size car (50) to very expensive technology. And it's a 6.5 gallons - 3 times as much! - savings to go from the pickup to the Ford. I think it's clear what we should focus on if we want to reduce consumption.

-Felix

However you express it, if you burn less fuel on a given trip that you usually make, this is a good thing.

The technology could use some improvement, for sure, and yes, the big 20mpg-and-less vehicles are problematic (and how many pickup drivers need a pickup?), but from what I see, a huge part of the problem is the way people drive.

There's no point in racing between controlled intersections, or doing the spurt/stop/spurt thing in rush-hour traffic. And I'm always amazed when I find myself in a very prolonged traffic jam (due to a major accident or event-entry congestion) and see that I'm the only driver among hundreds who has turned off the engine. People will idle for hours even when there's no need for cooling or heating the car.

I currently drive a 20-yr-old 5-liter manual-shift Mustang, and if I drive it conservatively, I average about 27 mpg. That's pretty good even in comparison to my previous mount, an automatic 1.4-liter Geo Tracker, which got about 30 mpg even when it was fresh. A large part of it is how you drive.

 

[skidoo]

102 mpg isn't nearly as great as it sounds. There's production diesel cars that are quite nice and get 78mpg. My disappointment with all these efforts is that while it's good to reduce consumption, the focus right now should be on improving the consumption of vehicles at the very high end (<20mpg), rather than the low end. The high end consumption cars use up most of the fuel, not those cars in the 30mpg range. This is the problem with using MPG rather than g/100miles. MPG makes it seem like it's just as good for consumption to go from 50mpg to 102mpg as it is to go from 15 to 30 mpg - sadly, that's NOT the case at all.

As an example - we're driving 200 miles:

The ~100mpg car uses 2 gallons of fuel
A 50mpg Diesel car uses 4
A midsize 30mpg Ford uses 6.5 gallons
A 1980 15mpg Chevy Pickup uses 13 gallons

That's a 2 gallons savings to go from a very realistic mpg for a good diesel engine for a full size car (50) to very expensive technology. And it's a 6.5 gallons - 3 times as much! - savings to go from the pickup to the Ford. I think it's clear what we should focus on if we want to reduce consumption.

-Felix

And neither method expresses a full picture. For example:

A 50 MPG Diesel car that uses 4 gallons to move 150 lbs of payload 200 miles vs

A 50 MPG Diesel SUV that uses 4 gallons to move 1500 lbs of payload 200 miles.


They both sport a great and equal mileage rate, but one is clearly more efficient.

 

[Steve Foley]

a huge part of the problem is the way people drive.

In a completely unscientific survey (counting on my way to work, sample size = 200) I've found that 4% of the vehicles on the road have more than one occupant.

Now THAT's inefficient.

 

[EdFred]

In a completely unscientific survey (counting on my way to work, sample size = 200) I've found that 4% of the vehicles on the road have more than one occupant.

Now THAT's inefficient.

I don't have a wife or kids. Who's gonna be in the car with me?

 

[Steve Foley]

I don't have a wife or kids. Who's gonna be in the car with me?

The occupants of three other cars going in the same direction.

 

[EdFred]

The occupants of three other cars going in the same direction.

I'm 3 minutes from work, which means I gotta wait an hour for anyone I would carpool with to pick me up, same thing in the morning. And then how do I get home to let the dog out at lunch?

 

[Steve Foley]

I'm 3 minutes from work, which means I gotta wait an hour for anyone I would carpool with to pick me up, same thing in the morning. And then how do I get home to let the dog out at lunch?

Walk to work. Ride a bicycle. Hitchike. Get a scooter. Make arrangements to ride with someone. Read a book while you're waiting.

There are always alternatives. I'm certainly not helping, with the five cars in my driveway. I also commute to school, fifty miles away, three times a week, by myself.

If gas was $100 per gallon, people would find a way to conserve. I'm not advocating a gubmint $97/gallon tax, just making a point. We, as Americans, burn too much gas when it's not necessary.

It's great that people are working on increasing gas mileage so we can cut our consumption in half or more, but by simply carpooling, we could do that ourselves.

 

[Henning]

yep the next X prize should be for something that can pull my glider trailer at 70 mph and get 40 mpg.

That can be done already, I can modify your glider trailer so you'll improve on your current unloaded fuel economy while towing it. I picked up a litre and a half towing this weighing 750kg (went from 11.5 litres per 100km at 110kph just the car alone to 10 litres per 100km at 110kph towing the trailer) and I can improve another 11% onto that by ducting high pressure air into the cavity.

 

[sba55]

It's easier for dumb people to see the amount saved when reading it in g/100m than in mpg. I imagine that's why they show it that way in Canada and Europe.

Is that why they use the metric system there, too? It's not about intelligence, it's about using the most straightforward metric. Most people in the US are confused about MPG - not surprisingly, since any scale with diminishing returns is confusing.

Maybe 15mpg is a bit extreme, but 25mpg certainly isn't. Lots and lots of new cars - generally cheap ones - get dreadful gas mileage. Making efficient engines isn't cheap, which is why many manufacturers can't really try...

 

[EdFred]

Is that why they use the metric system there, too? It's not about intelligence, it's about using the most straightforward metric. Most people in the US are confused about MPG - not surprisingly, since any scale with diminishing returns is confusing.

Maybe 15mpg is a bit extreme, but 25mpg certainly isn't. Lots and lots of new cars - generally cheap ones - get dreadful gas mileage. Making efficient engines isn't cheap, which is why many manufacturers can't really try...

I don't need to be spood fed info to know that a 5 unit increase on a 10 unit baseline saves more vs a 30 unit baseline. I guess I'm smarter than Europeans and Canadians.

 

[steingar]

Lots of ways for Americans to improve energy efficiency. I live 3 miles from my lab and ride a motorcycle most days, and I could do better. Most Americans live much farther from their place of work and drive immense vehicles for which they have no earthly need save comfort. We'll be forced to conserve someday, I just hope we take a real stab at it before that point.