If anyone were to come along and do an updated version of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing," the could change the background vocal from "I want my MTV" to "I want my MPG" or "I want my low Cd." Coefficient of drag, that is. Carmakers are taking every step they can, starting with aerodynamics, to give cars better gas mileage right now while they wait for more substantial technologies to come online in the near future.
But the tweaks don't stop with aero finessing. The 2009 Dodge Ram spent 200 hours in the wind tunnel, and it also received tweaks to its ECU, which means it spends more time in its cylinder cutoff mode. That, plus eighty pounds of weight savings, adds up to one more MPG on the EPA sheet. Said Ford's Derek Kuzak, "We need to treat every joule of energy in a vehicle like a precious commodity."
In fact, that song hook could also be "I want my XFE." The Cobalt XFE, developed over 18 months to offer the best gas mileage in the Cobalt line, is selling six percent better than expected. Fuel economy, instead of design, is the number one reason people buy a Cobalt now. And the XFE has the lowest on-the-lot time of any Cobalt model. That's how important the price of gas has become.
A tanking light truck market has hurt Chrysler more than most automakers, and a quick glance at the Pentastar's lineup shows that its lack of a small car isn't helping matters, either. Another thing that Chrysler doesn't appear to have in the immediate future is a plug-in hybrid or electric car. That doesn't mean such a product will never exist, though (right?). Chrysler spokesman Nick Cappa told the Detroit Free Press that Project ENVI will produce an electric vehicle in "three to five years." Though Mr. Cappa didn't give any details about the project, he did say the skunkworks tech could "turn everything into a range-extended vehicle and take it beyond the 2020 campaign for 35 miles per gallon." We're not sure if "turn everything" means that ENVI is going to enable every Chrysler vehicle to surpass 2020 fuel economy levels, but it sure sounds like it.
For Chrysler's oversized dealer body, a 2013 time frame might as well be the date of the unveiling of the Chrysler Starship Enterprise. They're looking for something to sell now, and the Pentastar has given them very few commitments. The dealers are pleased with upcoming diesel models, and a two-mode minivan will help some, but efficient vehicles with plenty of volume is the order of the day. Make that yesterday.
The car-buying public has put its collective foot down and demanded fuel-efficient vehicles, and automakers are likely to do anything to answer customer demand. That may include reinventing the wheel, as more automakers look into incorporating low rolling resistance tires into non-hybrid vehicles. The high-pressure rubber can return fuel economy improvements of 1-2 mpg in most instances, giving automakers that use them a leg up on the competition when comparing EPA data. The new four-cylinder 2009 Ford Escape eked out an additional 1 mpg with the new tires, giving the CUV 21 mpg in the city and 27 mpg on the highway. Michelin estimates that low rolling resistance tires can save $300 in fuel costs at $4 per gallon over the life of tire, which is fairly substantial.
There are drawbacks to low-rolling resistance tires, too. They're more expensive than standard rubber, the ride isn't quite as comfortable, and the tires cause longer braking distances. In fact, Consumer Reports gave the Escape a lower rating because it had such poor stop times. The bottom line is that customers are looking for improved economy at all costs. Since low rolling resistance tires improve fuel economy, the cars that have them and achieve superior fuel economy as a result will be more attractive to mpg-conscious buyers.
In a trend that is sure to prove popular, Hyundai will add a less powerful and more fuel efficient four-cylinder to the available engine lineup on its Santa Fe model when it is redesigned for 2010. As of today, the four-door crossover is available with a choice of either a 2.7-liter or a 3.3-liter six-cylinder powerplant mated to four- or five-speed automatics (a five-speed manual is optional on the smaller engine). Both are rated at 24 mpg highway in the current model. The next-gen Santa Fe will offer a new six-speed automatic with the 2.4-liter four-cylinder that is currently powering the 2009 Hyundai Sonata. Under the hood of the lighter Sonata sedan (and mated to a five-speed automatic), the second-generation Theta engine squeezes out 32 mpg on the highway. While we don't think the Santa Fe will pull a number that impressive, fuel economy in the high-20's shouldn't be out of the question.
Mainstream automakers are faced with the reality of improving the efficiency and cleanliness of everyday vehicles, but companies like Porsche and Lamborghini say drastic change would effect the underlying character of their products. Ferrari apparently doesn't feel the same way, as the exotic automaker has pledged to cut emissions 40 percent by 2012. Like most other automakers, Ferrari plans on tackling its emissions problems on several fronts. It will improve the efficiency of its current powertrains, add new engines, possibly including a turbocharged V6, and bring a hybrid to market that could incorporate Ferrari's Kinetic Energy Recycling System (KERS) employed on its F1 cars, which uses a CVT connected to a flywheel that stores energy under braking. Prancing stallion president Luca Cordero di Montezemolo told a German newspaper that the hybrid Ferrari would be available around 2015. If anybody can make a hybrid supercar that is entertaining, efficient, exotic, and extremely fast, we're betting on the guys and gals over at Ferrari.
Automakers understand that the buying public is struggling with high gas prices, and the entire industry is working on new technologies to ease our financial burden. Unfortunately, new fuel efficient products are going to take a while to develop on a large scale, so for now we're just going to have to grin and bear it. That is unless you want to follow the wisdom of Toyota, which has dug deep into its core of corporate genius to give the car-driving public this little tidbit of advice: drive less. Wow, the solution was right under our noses the whole time, and we just didn't figure it out. You know there is a problem with gas prices when automakers start telling you to buy a bicycle.
Head over to Autoblog Green to read up on some very real ways that you can save on fuel, and check out the site's fancy new diggs while you're at it.
U.S. university boffins have hypothesized that you'll get a better idea of how much you spend on gas if you start thinking in gallons per mile. With U.S. gas prices headed for the upper atmosphere, people are paying more attention to fuel efficiency numbers. Europeans already express their fuel usage in liters/100 km, which makes sense seeing that they've been paying $5 a gallon for much longer than we have.
The key is that going from 10- to 20-MPG yields higher savings -- which means less money spent on fuel -- than going from 25- to 50-MPG. The former swap yields $25 dollars in savings over 100 miles, the latter yields just $10 in savings. However, if you know that one car uses 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and another uses 3.5 gallons per 100 miles... then you immediately know which one will cost you less at the pump.
Of course, this all depends on what kind of car you're starting with in the first place. Researcher Richard Larrick said, "We were trying to decide whether to get rid of a minivan and go for a station wagon versus getting rid of a sedan and going for a really high-mileage hybrid car. We realized in the end we were better off trading in the minivan and only gaining 10 miles per gallon then we would be trying to swap out the sedan for a highly efficient car." Thanks for the tip, Stephen!
Click above for more pics of the Dough Heffron's 75 mpg "tandem" Metro
Like a number of other folks who didn't get much attention at the time, Doug Heffron was worried about gas mileage and pump costs way back in 1993. That was back when this particular blogger had a VW Jetta that could be filled to the tippy top for $11, and having to spend $13 was considered criminal banditry. But Doug wasn't happy with merely cheap fill-ups and 56 mpg in his Geo Metro Xfi. So he turned it into the car you see above.
That meant installing tandem seating on the left side, fairing the wheels, changing the gearing, and chopping off the right side and replacing it with, well, nothing but a wing. Once finished, the car got 75 pg. All that work might sound like a lot for an extra 19 mph, but one should expect a bit of aero tweaking and math to squeeze a 34-percent gain in fuel economy from an already frugal econobox.
The car was driven for two years in all four New England seasons, and then gas prices went down and it was put away in a barn. In 2006, however, the barn doors opened again, but Doug hasn't said what he plans to do with the car. We're not saying that everyone should drive this type of... thing, but if a guy in his garage can crank out something like this, then... come on Chevy Volt! Thanks for the tip, Ted!
The GMnext blog has a post up that talks about the potential viability of a low-displacement turbocharged motor -- the direct-injected 2.0L Ecotec turbo, specifically -- in upcoming GM cars, including the Camaro. Let's talk about this a little. The breathed-upon Ecotec delivers 260 horses and 260 lb-ft of torque, and if you've driven, say, the Sky or Solstice equipped with it, you know just how ballsy it really is. It's more powerful (but less torquey) than either V8 offered in the '87 IROC-Z that I thought was so cool back during high school. The turbo four might well be a nice solution in a future iteration of the Camaro, but is the fuel economy argument for it as rock solid as it might seem on the surface?
The Pontiac Solstice GXP with the turbo four has an EPA fuel economy rating of 19 city/28 hwy when mated to a 5-speed manual. Not bad at all for the performance it delivers, but that same drivetrain in the bigger, heavier Camaro isn't likely to give you equal returns in terms of fuel consumption. Over at AutoblogGreen, Sam notes that the 2.0 turbo's lighter weight relative to the six- and eight-cylinders the Camaro's going to launch with should help somewhat. He follows by reminding us that GM's next-gen mild hybrid system will work with RWD cars and predicts that we'll see a 2.0T hybrid Camaro by 2011 or so. This would dovetail neatly with the first phase of the new CAFE regs, and we're sure GM would find a way to engineer a hypothetical turbo/hybrid's fuel economy numbers so they'd play nice within Uncle Sam's rules. Great.
The issue with all this talk of four-cylinder turbos and hybrids for a muscle car (along with attempts to redefine the class and reset expectations) is that everyone conveniently overlooks just how good the existing V8 is. In the 2008 Corvette Coupe, the big bad 6.2L LS3 is rated at 16 city/26 hwy. Hardly a guzzler in the traditional sense, the V8's rating isn't that far off from the direct-injected Ecotec turbo. Furthermore, the V8's fuel economy comes with 430 horsepower and 424 lb-ft of torque. Those are numbers befitting a muscle car like a Camaro. Who's to say a direct-injected LS-family V8 with efficiency tech like hybridization and/or cylinder deactivation wouldn't be just as effective at meeting the federal fuel economy requirements that begin taking effect a few years from now? You could potentially satisfy the government-created CAFE gods without giving the customers who want actual, traditional muscle the finger in the process. Yes, the consensus seems to be that smaller engines will be a necessity across the board in the new CAFE era, but let's not summarily ignore the bigger ones just because they're big.
When the current GMT900 SUVs hit the market in 2006, gas prices were already near $3.00 per gallon, but the super-sized transports sold in prodigious numbers anyway. The reasoning from the General and its customers was that there were still people with big boats or trailers to tow, and unibody CUVs just aren't up to the task. In the two years that followed, gas prices have gone from pesky to pandemic, and buyers are leaving their body-on-frame SUVs by the thousands.
The General isn't blind to the trend, and a report from Bloomberg says that GM may be ready to take the drastic step of separating the platforms of its trucks and full-size SUVs by 2012. The move is extreme because SUVs and trucks have saved development time and money by sharing a platform for many decades, but with such a dramatic shift away from the handy but fuel-thirsty rigs, GM has little choice but to think of alternatives. A unibody Tahoe or Escalade wouldn't be able to tow quite like its predecessor, but they would be lighter and have better fuel economy.
Our first thought was that GM already has eight-passenger unibody CUVs like the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook and upcoming Traverse, but without more utilitarian SUVs like the Tahoe, there should be room for a more purpose-built CUV in the lineup. While this news isn't exactly earth-shattering, we're thinking it very accurately illustrates just how fast these times they are-a-changing, and how far automakers will go to stay viable. Thanks for the tip, Fro!
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
In the Autoblog Garage: Aprilia RSV 1000 R
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
