There are many simple things the Auto Co's can do to improve mileage- example: the Turbo

[n2doc]

Something old is new again -- and greener
By Ken Bensinger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 24, 2007
The next thing in greener cars doesn't need hydrogen, lithium-ion batteries or even a power cord. In fact, it's based on century-old technology that's been used on trucks since before World War II: the turbo.

Under pressure to reduce emissions and increase fuel-efficiency, automakers are quietly turning to turbocharging as a relatively cheap, easy-to-implement technology that could soon be a permanent staple on internal combustion engines.

That's because turbos, high-velocity fans that recirculate and compress exhaust gases back into the motor's cylinders, can increase fuel-efficiency by as much as 30% while increasing power output. Thanks to that increased power, smaller engines can be used, reducing weight and further increasing efficiency. And because it's a proven technology, the research and development costs are enticingly low.

"There isn't a dynamometer in Detroit that doesn't have a turbocharged engine being tested on it right now," says Eric Noble, president of Carlab, an automotive consultant in Orange. "There's still a lot of fuel savings that can be gotten out of a traditional engine."

Automakers are cagey about announcing how many cars will get the turbo boost, but General Motors executives say they are considering putting turbos on even their largest passenger vehicles. Hyundai just announced its first turbocharged car -- the Genesis coupe -- for the U.S. market in a dozen years.

Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz are preparing to hit the American market with new turbocharged diesels starting next year. And last week at the L.A. Auto Show, Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally announced a major initiative to begin putting turbochargers and a related technology -- direct fuel injection -- on a large portion of its fleet in the near future, calling the move a "cornerstone of Ford's near-term plan."

more:
http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-fi-garage24nov24,0,180845.story?coll=la-home-middleright

Yet another reason to boost the CAFE numbers. The bastards can easily boost fleet mileage with simple, proven tech, with no significant side effects-they just haven't wanted to!

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I support development of turbocharged engines

but I hope they've improved since the first - and only - turbo car I've ever owned: a 1982 Nissan Pulsar. I'm no hot-rodder, and I obeyed all the instructions for maintaining the turbo, but it failed in a spectacular manner - thankfully while the engine was still under warranty.

As the turbo was failing, I noticed what appeared to be a fog bank in my rear-view mirror. Within a mile, I pulled into a service station, and that's where I saw the plume of white smoke (presumably from engine oil) that had been billowing from the exhaust pipe - big enough to obscure a destroyer!

The turbo was replaced on Nissan's dime, and there wasn't any apparent engine damage, but I got rid of the car within a couple of months. I had lost confidence in their turbo design, which was soon dropped from that line of cars.

I'm all for incorporation of turbo technology, however. I just hope they're reliable enough to create a viable customer base. Even a few instances of failure could turn off consumers for a long time.

[madrchsod]

2. the earlier turbos were hand grenades

this generation has far better alloys and cooling systems. my daughter works at a plant that is on schedule to produce several hundred thousands of computer regulated actuators for turbo systems. most if not a diesel engines will be turbo charged in the near future and depending on the size so will gas/ethanol engines.

[CRF450]

6. Actuators?

I know turbo's do have a boost controller, along with a boost spring, and a BOV, (blow off valve) what that does is relieve boost pressure when you let off the gas, because after you let off the throttle the turbo is still spinning and making boost for a second. That pressure has to be relieved or it will cause damage.

[madrchsod]

9. that is the production name

the manufacture gives to the part. they are looking at over a million a year in the near future. it`s and interesting part it`s very simple with few electronics and moving parts and i really hate to think how much it costs to replace.

[CRF450]

12. But what part is it that they're calling the actuator?

[midnight armadillo]

13. I have one in my Saab...

...a 2001 9-5. It works quite nicely. Turbos have come a very long way in 25 years: water cooling, vastly improved bearing and turbine design, and better materials are all used today. Recently variable vane technology (which varies the angle of the turbine blades for better performance) has been used in a gas engine in a high end Porsche. Previously this was limited to diesel applications due to lower exhaust temps in diesel engines. Turbos are typically expected to last the life of the car these days.

ACtually, the 99-01 Saab 9-5's were cursed with a bad run of turbos made by Garrett. Mine is showing some signs of leaking seals, so I will be replacing it with a higher-spec Mitsubishi turbo in the spring (along with an Aero-spec ECU, getting me a nice 45 extra hp at no loss of mileage), and THAT one should last as long as I own the car :)

[macllyr]

3. In Europe, all diesel cars are turbocharged

In Europe, almost all small car diesel engines have been turbocharged
for years...
e.g. : 1.9 liter HDI = 110-130 HP, 6L/100km, 40mpg
Mac L'lyr

[Kolesar]

4. The writer says: "Americans want big, heavy motors"

Do any of the car buyers that you know say that?

That gap, experts say, is largely due to American tastes -- and prejudices. Simply put, Americans want big, heavy motors, and they associate displacement (the volume of air and gas drawn in by an engine) with power. Turbos, on the other hand, are seen as accouterments for tin-can sports cars and low-slung street rodders, hardly something useful for towing, say, or even lugging children to soccer practice.
...
The notion that a high-efficiency, carefully tuned four-cylinder could seamlessly replace the big-block monsters that have defined American roading for decades is practically blasphemy in some circles.

[CRF450]

5. Oh great, not this kind argument again.

In the performance car world, displacment is better, provided that the car itself doesn't weigh too much. Turbocharge a Civic, it will hang with Camaro and Mustangs, do the same thing to a Stang or f-body, and they'll easily outrun the Civic with less boost. When you put turbo's on a v8, it doesn't take much to get monstrous horsepower. Cost wise, I'd say it doesn't really matter, modifying either econo car or muscle car is an expensive hobby. I plan on getting a twin turbo kit for my Trans Am. It is true that turbo's do increase effeciency and mpg from an engine, you just gotta stay off the gas if you want good fuel milage. I average around 23mpg in the T/A and have gotten up to 31mpg on the interstate. I wonder how much of an increase their will be when my future twin turbo kit is installed.

I prefer a v8 anyways, cause I hate how gutless 4cyl engines feel in the low rpm's, and they do get respectable fuel milage in a vehicle that doesn't weigh over 2 tons.

Todays v8's are also much lighter than the common iron blocks becuase they are now using aluminum like in the Corvettes. The all aluminum LS1 v8 in my Trans Am weighs a little over 400lbs. Iron block engines are very heavy!

[Kolesar]

14. What do you think of "active fuel management" by turning off 4 of the 8 cylinders?

That is another fuel economy technology about to go into widespread use.

(I think I get the point of your post, btw.)

[CRF450]

16. In the cars that its in, it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference

The problem with that is the 4 cyclinders making power have to work harder, because its still turning the other cylinders. That somewhat negates the purpose of the feature.

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. Yes, most all buyers say that

Not directly but the result is the same.
Americans don't want to be required to shift gears. Which was one of the reasons for putting large motors in cars back in the 40's and 50's. Today while renting a Automatic Car in Europe requires advanced reservations, something like 80% of Americans can't drive a manual transmission.
Then there is the question of power band. I keep finding people who believe that you can't rev a motor over 3000rpm without shortening the life of the motor. Nevermind the designed operating range of the motor, somebody told them this so it must be true.

Well if the requirement is that the car must perform adequatly at under 3000rpm and avoid having to shift. Your preatty much limited to producing an engine with alot of torque. Add to that most consumers think they want Horse Power (not Torque). Well giving them torque but making the HP look good so they believe it has what they want requires more compromises. Have to make the motor breath good so you can get the HP numbers up at higher rpms, etc.

[CRF450]

19. It also bugs me that hardly anyone drives a manual

Stuff like "its too hard, my leg will get tired after a while". Pathetic! x(

Fuel milage wise it wont really be a problem anymore cause new 5 or 6 speed autos have caught up to the mpg manuals are getting. But I'd still like for them to be in the market and not deminished.

[CRF450]

7. They can but it will come at a cost, a more expensive car.

Plus they'd have to do modifications to the engine so it can handle the horsepower boost.

[CRF450]

8. I just realized they made a mistake in that article

"That's because turbos, high-velocity fans that recirculate and compress exhaust gases back into the motor's cylinders, can increase fuel-efficiency by as much as 30% while increasing power output."

Exhaust gasses turn the turbine wheel in the turbo, incoming clean air is pulled into the turbo, its then compressed and forced into the engine. Exhaust gasses only spin the turbo, thats it.

[madokie]

10. I wonder if with the catalytic converters if maybe they are dumping in more fuel than the engine can

efficiently burn and cleaning the exhaust up with the converter. I have a '98 truck that has about the same power as another I had that was built in '74 that got a good 5 miles more to the gallon. In the older truck I got from 18 to 21 miles to the gallon whereas with the newer one I only get 14 to 15 mpg. my driving habits hadn't changed and the work the two trucks were asked to do were pretty much the same but with a 20 percent or so difference in fuel consumption. how does that work anyways

[CRF450]

11. Its not that, its just that your older truck was lighter.

My Dakota gets around 16mpg and it weighs just over 6,000 pounds.

[madokie]

15. I think they weighted about the same

'74 long wheel base ford with a 390 engine and c6 tranny, '98 short wheelbase ford with a 5.4 engine and the big tranny. When I sold the '74 truck when we bought the 98 one new it had 178 thousands miles on it and I never had to work on it, except for plugs and a kit in the carburetter once. I miss the old truck it was so comfortable to ride in and drive, the longer wheelbase I guess.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Less Emission Controls

74 was back at the begining of Smog motors, did it have a Cat?
And you are getting at least 15mpg running empty, right?
Those old FE Series Big Blocks were definitly reliable though.

The 3-Way Cat on your 98 requires a very precise Air/Fuel ratio to work properly. So I doubt it's really the motor itself thats costing you economy. Also the change in tires can cause poorer milage, but much improved handling.

(I can't recall anyone getting even 15mpg with a F150 in the mid to late 70's. Mostly around 12 as I recall. )