University of Wisconsin Wins FutureTruck Competition

emmons writes: "The University of Wisconsin has won this year's FutureTruck Competition by reducing the greenhouse gas index of a Ford Explorer by 50% and increasing over-the-road fuel economy by 45%. The modified Explorer uses an aluminum/steel hybrid frame, a titanium exhaust system and sports a hybrid bio-diesel/electric engine. I saw the vehicle on campus a few months ago and got to talk to some of the team members- it's really quite impressive."

Comments

Excellent ideas, but...

[Black Aardvark House]

Can all these changes be implemented by the auto manufacturers? Sure, titanium is stronger and lighter but is also harder to work with and more expensive that the common exhaust alternative, steel. These trucks must be inexpensive enough to produce to be inexpensive enough for the average consumer.

And aluminum as safe as an all-steel frame? Perhaps, but I'm under the impression that aluminum is not as strong a building material as steel.

The biggest advantages can be seen in engine technology, especially hybrid gas/electric and alternative fuels (natural gas produces 20% the emissions of gasoline, yet provides similar power). If nothing else, we can make great strides in improving air quality.

Re:Excellent ideas, but...

[Liquor]

Yes, the changes could be implemented by the auto manufacturers - and with the economy of scale, it wouldn't be that much difference in cost compared to the price of the vehicle. Right now, though, unless forced to either by demand (unlikely) or legislation, the manufacturers will only produce the absolute lowest cost designs.

As for safety - a properly designed fram is safe regardless of the material, and aluminum alloys are stronger than steel for the same weight. The most dangerous part of most SUV designs is the tendency to roll over, anyway - and an aluminum body instead of steel would help considerably in reducing that tendency. (The center of gravity would be lower.)

The real problem is incentive. Right now, there is NO incentive for manufacturers to improve the mileage on SUVs of any kind. (They don't have to meet the EPA/DOT mandated mileage figures, and are actually a cash cow for the manufacturers - they are priced many K$ above the real cost, and people buy them regardless.)

Re:Excellent ideas, but...

[ivan256]

Yes, the changes could be implemented by the auto manufacturers - and with the economy of scale, it wouldn't be that much difference in cost compared to the price of the vehicle.

If a company sells 20 million SUVs, and the cost of each one is increased by $100 through the use of titanium exhaust, and other more expensive components, They're not going to be keen on putting out an extra $2 billion dollars up front to make the switch. Even though it's an insignificant cost per vehicle, it's less money they have to use for financing, and it's definatly not earning interest when the vehicles are waiting to be sold on the lot. The manufacturing scale actualy works against the improvement in this case. (Hmm, 4-5 more miles per gallon, or claim a savings of $2 billion dollars, and everyone gets bonuses....)

Re:Excellent ideas, but...

[paradesign]

Audi uses aluminum frames in, i believe, all of their vehicles. most notably in the A8 line of super sedans and their A2 line of sub compacts.

same fuel efficiencey

[Parsec]

Of course, we could get the same fuel efficiency and reduction in pollution just by purchasing a reasonable mid-size car instead of a SUV.

Re:same fuel efficiencey

[shaper]

Of course, we could get the same fuel efficiency and reduction in pollution just by purchasing a reasonable mid-size car instead of a SUV.

You assume that "we" have a "reasonable" mid-size family (or less) to haul around. A "reasonable" mid-size car does not have enough capacity for me, my spouse and 3 children and our stuff. Most vehicles these days seem to assume a family size of 4 or less. I need a vehicle that can carry at least 5 people plus groceries/luggage or maybe even another passenger or two. Even the Ford Explorer is actually too small for my needs. It's too narrow across the back seat to easily fit 3 child seats (all 3 of my children are still too small for regular seat belts). So, I'm pretty much forced to only consider mini-vans and large sport-utes.

Re:same fuel efficiencey

[Midnight Thunder]

A people carrier is still likely to be more efficient than a SUV. The problem is that people carriers tend to be designed for the family and are usually more aerodynamic than your average SUV. Most SUVs that I see are less aerodynamic than a brick.

If you are driving around a full vehicle it is one thing, but if you are driving around 365 days a year with only one person then the efficiency per load doesn't look so good.

Re:same fuel efficiencey

[shaper]

Well, my one-person daily commuter car is a Miata :-) Our other vehicle is the humongous familymobile and it is full more often than it is not, so I think I'm being fairly responsible. I just bridle at the knee-jerk reaction to large vehicles from people who live alone or only have one or two other people to haul around.

As for the people carrrier vs. SUV argument, I also occasionally need to pull a trailer. A frount-wheel-drive V-6 just ain't gonna get it. It's gotta be (rear or four)-wheel-drive with a decent size V8 to handle large loads. An SUV is just too versatile for carrying/pulling/hauling stuff to ignore. Before they became fashionable enough to give us monstrosities like the Cadillac Escapade and Lincoln Flabigator, people like me were still buying them for the "utility" part of sport-utility.

Re:same fuel efficiencey

[zenyu]

Well, my one-person daily commuter car is a Miata :-) Our other vehicle is the humongous familymobile and it is full more often than it is not, so I think I'm being fairly responsible. I just bridle at the knee-jerk reaction to large vehicles from people who live alone or only have one or two other people to haul around.

You know I don't react badly when I see a family in an SUV. I try to make eye contact with the driver because they are still unsafe, as long as they are driven with the proper caution and at proper speeds for such a vehicle, which I'm sure you do with all those kids, they aren't so bad.

But I live in NYC and 90% of the time there is just a driver and maybe a single passenger and usually one who really just needs elevator shues or penis/boobjob and certainly shouldn't have a license for such a large vehicle. That's where the ugly looks come from. I think if these vehicles required a specialized license that required you do go out and roll one of these jobbies, and at least a weeklong full-time training course all that animosity would be replaced by respect. A $8-$10 dollar a gallon gas tax would probably even get some of the less responsible drivers to get a Miata for their commute. (I'm not all pro-tax, I think it should be accompanied by an equal reductions on other taxes, perhaps even earmarking the fuel tax for infrastructure, military and court costs from transportation issues.)

sssshhhhh!

[Pauly]

You mean that these students created an SUV that nearly doubled its fuel economy without jeapordizing the safety of the entire nation?

We'd better keep this a secret, or else all those senators and lobbyists that killed the bill to raise CAFE standards would look pretty stupid right now!

Re:Ah, but what did it *cost*?

[(trb001)]

Actually, if we're only talking $3K more on the initial price tag, sign me up...let's do some math.

(Before we begin, I live outside of D.C.)

Current gas price: $1.46/gal
Amount spent per week: around $23
Amount spent per year: 52 x $23 = $1196
Amount spent per year (45% better): $657.80
Savings: $538.20

So we're talking around 6 years to recoup your savings just from gas. I intend to have a car for >6 years, so yeah, I would buy this thing. Consider, also, gas prices have steadily gone up over the PAST 6 years, so you're actually talking about saving more than that.

--trb

yes, but....

[Ashurbanipal]

Most aluminum is recycled, and costs little compared to other metals.

But yes, the initial electrolysis of aluminium from bauxite is unbelievably energy-intensive and is typically only feasible where hydroelectric power is cheaply available.

Faulty logic

[Spamalamadingdong]

Diesel has a greater density than gasoline, and thus that is why Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.

Um, no. If all you did was substitute a fuel with more energy/gallon (such as gasoline for propane), you will get more miles per gallon even at the same efficiency. Greater energy density of the fuel does not make an engine more efficient. You might also want to look at this paper, where it states:

Burning natural gas and propane gives less carbon dioxide and more water vapour per energy unit than burning gasoline or diesel fuel. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas. International agreements to reduce carbon dioxide have been signed /39/. The emission of greenhouse gases is dependent on both the efficiency of the whole chain and fuel chemistry. Evaluations of energy consumption and greenhouse gases should be carried out over the whole fuel chain including production, distribution and utilisation (life cycle analysis, LCA).

One argument heard in promoting natural gas as an automotive fuel is that natural gas reduces carbon dioxide emissions compared to conventional hydrocarbon fuels. This is most cases true when substituting gasoline with natural gas.

The situation is different for heavy-duty vehicles. The thermal efficiency of the Otto cycle is lower than that of the diesel cycle, and therefore the energy consumption of a heavyduty spark-ignited natural gas or propane engine is higher compared to the diesel engine.

The fact is that diesel engines running on typical fuels use higher compression ratios than Otto-cycle engines, and higher compression means greater efficiency. The diesel also runs without a throttle, eliminating throttling losses at partial power and further increasing efficiency; engine torque is modulated by reducing the fuel without changing the airflow, which cannot be done in an Otto-cycle engine because the engine will misfire when the mixture gets too lean.

If you run an Otto-cycle engine exclusively on propane rather than gasoline, and increase the compression to suit the fuel, you will get higher efficiency and lower CO2 emissions than the gasoline version... but at 5 pounds of propane per gallon vs. 6.2 pounds/gallon of gasoline, you are still going to get fewer miles per gallon.

If a bunch of students can do it, why not Detroit?

[Spamalamadingdong]

Can all these changes be implemented by the auto manufacturers?

It's not necessary to make a production vehicle exactly like the experimental one, it's only necessary to achieve the same results. The Moolennium (click on the Moolennium link on the right) got 32 MPG. Heck, Ford itself was talking about a 40-MPG Escape for production in what, MY2004?

These trucks must be inexpensive enough to produce to be inexpensive enough for the average consumer.

No they don't. The price of the truck needs to incorporate all the external costs which are currently foisted off on the rest of the world. If fuel cost $5/gallon it would make efficient trucks quite attractive even without much prompting, and $5/gallon is probably what petroleum fuel would cost if all of the external costs of protecting the Persian gulf, subsidizing Saddam Hussein and the Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia (the folks whose theology drives Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda) and other things were charged at the pump.

And aluminum as safe as an all-steel frame?

Pound for pound, aluminum is much stiffer and stronger than steel. That's why modern aircraft are built mostly out of aluminum (where they haven't gone to composites).

You are right about air quality, but I think that if we aren't willing to shoot for a doubling of fuel economy in our vehicles (and quite a bit more in the rest of the economy via co-generation), frankly we are being lazy pikers. We can double economy with technologies which are student playthings; when you consider the kind of advances which are currently in the real labs, and how they could come to the car dealerships and merchandise racks at Home Depot and Lowe's over the next 20 years, you have to wonder what excuse there is for doing nothing. I sure don't see one.

Re:Cars??

[Ashurbanipal]

The crude won't run out in 20 years. The *CHEAP* crude will run out in 20 years. Fat cat Washington politicos, network talking heads, the hereditary rich, and corporate robber barons will still be able to drive gas-guzzling behemoths, but the rest of us need to come up with another plan.

Audi

[paradesign]

Audi is one of the world leading inovaters of aluminum framed cars. check them out here Audi.com the A2 and the A8 series' of vehicles are their most remarkable uses of the material.

Re:Ah, but what did it *cost*?

[martyn s]

But what about the money you could've made by investing that $3K with an 8% interest rate:

3000*(1.08)^6 = 4,760.62

Gas would not cost you that much, even with the projected price increases.

That being said, there are other reasons to get a fuel efficient car than to save money. To help the environment. And, in my eyes, that's a very noble reason for spending a little extra money on a car.

But, regardless, you can't justify an extra $3K just based on money saved, because no money will be saved at all.

Let me rephrase that

[Spamalamadingdong]

You have engaged in the non-formal inductive fallacy of semantic confusion. Whereas, I was using the more colloquial definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. mpg, you used a more technical thermodynamic definition of 'efficiency'' i.e. nu (the greek letter).

In other words, I was correcting your fallacious argument (implied by your false equivalence between different motor fuels) by using a more precise definition. I plead nolo contendere.